TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preciation prescribing the same rate of depreciation of 15% for plant and machinery and motor vehicles forms a single category of block of assets. We accordingly observe that the assessee was very well justified in seeking to merge its plant & machinery with motor vehicle so as to form a single block of assets as per provisions of the Act. We thus direct the Assessing Officer to frame necessary consequential computation as per the assessee’s revised depreciation schedule filed in the course of assessment proceedings as per law. See M/s. Filmcraft Productions India Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT [2015 (7) TMI 1193 - ITAT MUMBAI] and Ansal Property & Infrastructure Ltd.[2012 (4) TMI 469 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 3097/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n claim of ₹ 7,78,769/-. The assessee stated that verification of its return filed revealed that various assets having depreciation rate of 15% under the block plant and machinery had not been merged for the purpose of calculating depreciation on account of its inadvertent mistake. It sought to file a correct claim of depreciation after merging the relevant block of assets under the head plant and machinery as well as that of motor vehicle having identical depreciation rate of 15%. The Assessing Officer observed in the impugned assessment order dated 20.12.2011 that relevant part A of the schedule of depreciation for tangible assets although granted same rate of depreciation on plant and machinery on motor vehicle, the same could no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nery and Plant, there are 9 class of assets and Machinery and Plant and Motor cars are listed as different class of assets. Therefore, the AO has correctly rejected the appellant's claim of merging two different class of assets namely, plant and machinery and motor car in one block of assets. This ground is accordingly dismissed. 5. We have heard both the parties. Both the learned counsel do agree that hon ble apex court s decision in Goetz case (supra) does not impinge upon appellate authorities jurisdiction to entertain additional pleas in absence of a revised return. Their arguments are confined to merits of the issue as to whether the assessee could rightly seek to merge two block of assets of plant and machinery and motor ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
