TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for previous year relevant to AY 2001-02 had not been made by your appellant nor had been thrust upon by the AO, is contrary to law and the facts of the case. 2 The order of the learned CIT(A) Valsad, in confirming the disallowance to the extent of 1/6th of the expenses under the head Telephone and Vehicle Expenses and Depreciation thereon, amounting in total to ₹ 26,756/-. 3 Your appellant craves the leave to add alter, amend modify delete, append, any of the ground/s of appeal. 2 Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of ₹ 26,39,600/- filed on 31-08-2004 by the assessee-firm, engaged in manufacturing toughened glasses, after being processed on 31.8.2004 u/s 143(1) of the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly, the AO allowed depreciation of ₹ 4,58,274/- as against ₹ 6,96,484/ - claimed by the assessee, resulting in disallowance of ₹ 2,38,210/ -[Rs.6,96,484-4,58,274]. Consequently, the AO recomputed the deduct ion u/s.80IB of the Act, relying inter alia, on the decision in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Co, v/s. C.I.T. (1978) 113 ITR 84(SC), Mc. Dowell Co. Ltd. v/s. Commercial Tax Officer, 154 ITR 148(SC), and Indian Rayon Corporaion Ltd. v/s C.I.T. (2003) 261 ITR 98(Bom.) as also decision dated 9.11.2005 of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vahid Paper Converters vs. ITO,98 ITD 165(Ahmedabad). 3. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) while distinguishing the decision in C.I.T. V/s. Mahendra Mills Ltd. 243 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. AR nor the ld. DR informed the status of assessments for the AYs. 2001-02 to 2003-04, we find that the Tribunal vide order dated 12-04-2010 of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of M/s Khemani Distilleries P. Ltd. in ITA No.2149/Ahd/2007 for the AY 2004-05 relied on a decision dated 28.11.2008 in ITA no. 1885/Ahd/2005 for the AY 2002-03 in the case of the said assessee, wherein after referring to the definition of written down value in section 43(6) of the Act, it was held as under:- 10. A perusal of the above provisions shows that the WDV in respect of depreciation is to be calculated is the actual cost of the asset to the assessee as reduced by the amount of the depreciation actually allowed to the assessee. Now in the inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allow the depreciation of ps.3,25,69,030/- as claimed by the assessee as against the depreciation of ₹ 2,53,98,048/- allowed to the assessee. Thus, this ground of appeal is allowed. 5.1 The aforesaid decision dated 28.11.2008 was subsequently followed by another Bench in the case of M/s Siddharth Corporation in ITA No.866/Ahd/2007 and in the case of M/s Gautam Enterprises in ITA No.867/Ahd/2007. 5.2 We find that decision in the case of Dabur India Ltd.(supra) relied upon by the ld. DR is not directly on this issue and therefore, reliance on the said decision is totally misplaced. 6 In the light of the view taken in the aforesaid decisions by the co-ordinate Benches, we are of the opinion that WDV of various assets can be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned CIT(A) upheld the disallowance in the following terms: 6.2 I have considered the submission of the appellant and as well as the observation of the AO in the assessment order. Since the appellant has not maintained log-book and register for personal user of car and telephone respectively, the AO is justified in making disallowance of 1/6th of such expenses. The addition made by the AO is sustained. The Appellant s Ground No.3 is Dismissed. 9. The assessee is now in appeal before us. The ld. AR merely reiterated their submissions before the ld. CIT(A) while the ld. DR supported the findings of the ld. CIT(A). 10 After hearing both the parties and considering the facts of the case, we find that the assessee has not referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
