TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nreasonable and excessive? 2. Whether Tribunal was right in law in granting 100 per cent, depreciation on addition of temporary erections, even though the property was acquired by the assessee and not taken on lease, the temporary erection to be treated as capital expenditure in computing the income of the assessee?" - we do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and hence th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in granting 100 per cent, depreciation on addition of temporary erections, even though the property was acquired by the assessee and not taken on lease, the temporary erection to be treated as capital expenditure in computing the income of the assessee?" The facts in a nutshell are as under: The assessment year involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal. Aggrieved by that order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, following its earlier orders, dismissed the Departmental appeal. Learned senior standing counsel submitted that the Tribunal was wrong 3 in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer with reference to the provisions of section 40A(2) of commission payment to the sister ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was produced by the Revenue that the order of the Tribunal is unreasonable and unjust. In respect of the second question, the Tribunal has given a finding that the assessee had made temporary partitions, false ceiling and given the walls a coat of paint. The only objection of the Revenue was that since the property was acquired by the assessee and not taken on lease, the temporary erection would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
