Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2007 (7) TMI 668 - ITAT MUMBAI

2007 (7) TMI 668 - ITAT MUMBAI - TMI - ITA No. 2954/Mum/2004 - Dated:- 26-7-2007 - Rajpal Yadav, J.M, and V.K. Gupta, A.M For the Appellant : D.V. Lakhani For the Respondent : D.K. Rao ORDER Per : Rajpal Yadav : The 1st Grievance of the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) has erred in granting depreciation @ 20% instead of 40% on the vehicles used by the Assessee in the course of its business. 2.2 The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee, at the very outset, submitted that this issue earlier arose in AY .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

No. 180/Mum/2002 and the Tribunal allowed the Depreciation to the assessee @ 40% by following the decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Telco Dealers Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd. in ITA No. 413/Mum/1996 for the AY 1992-93. Thus, in a way the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in AY 1997-98. However, at the time of hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative on the strength of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g to the Ld. Departmental Representative, ITAT cannot re-do the AO's order and withdraw the depreciation because that has been granted by the AO himself. If depreciation is not admissible to the assessee at all on the best of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment (supra) then at least 20% more on the basis of earlier order be not granted. 2.4 On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee pointed out that that this judgment is not applicable at all. It is given in altogether different .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty amount with the Lessor. It also paid lease rent as per the mutual agreement. The Lessor became a notified party under sub-section (2) of Sec. 3 of Special Court (Trial of Offence relating to transactions and securities) Act, 1992. The lessee had paid almost total cost of the cars except nominal amount. However, the Special Court considered the finance lease agreement between the lessee and the Lessor as simple lease agreement and directed the lessee to hand over the cars to the custodian. In .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version