TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - in the return of income. The assessee claimed this depreciation on an enhanced WDV by assuming that the depreciation for assessment year 1999-2000 was not allowed to it. While doing the scrutiny assessment Assessing Officer has disallowed an amount of ₹ 1,35,87,876/-. The observations of ld. CIT(A) on the action of Assessing Officer are as under :- For A.yr. 1999-2000, the assessee did not claim any depreciation on certain assets added to the block in its return of income but later on May, 24, 2001 the assessee filed an application u/s. 154 which was rejected by A.O. on 05/05/2006. The assessee did not take any further step to challenge the order of A. O. For the subsequent Asstt. Years namely 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.308/Kol/07 directed the A.O. to determine the correct opening WDV of the block of assets in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 43(6)(c)(ii) of the I.TAct. Therefore, the issue is whether the A. 0. was bound to rectify the WDV of the block of assets for the three subsequent A. Ys. Involved consequent upon rejection of the claim for depreciation for A. Y. 1999-00. The Hon ble ITAT upheld the decision of Ld. CIT(A) holding that the application for rectification filed by the assessee was just and proper. Thus in all the assessment years subsequent to assessment year 1999- 2000 the assessee has claimed depreciation on the enhanced WDV on the ground that its request for allowing depreciation for assessment year 1999- 2000 had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deleted the disallowance. We find no infirmity in the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same. 6.1. It is further observed that the filing of appeal before the Hon ble High Court against the decision of this Tribunal for A.Yrs.2001-02 to 2005-06 will not have any effect since the Hon ble High Court has neither set aside the orders of the Tribunal nor granted any stay. 7. In the result ground no.1 of the revenue s appeal is dismissed. 8. The second issue raised by the revenue in this appeal is relating to restriction of disallowance u/s 14A to 1% of the dividend income. 9. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee has earned dividend income of ₹ 4,89,60,099/- which has been claimed by it as exempt. The AO b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
