TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch but it is based on concurrent finding of facts based on the peculiar facts of the case. The Assessing Officer bifurcated the claim of depreciation in two units. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal accepted the factual version of the assessee on the question as to how and in what way they used the vehicles in question and why they claimed depreciation only in unit No. 1 and not in unit No. 2. – Hence revenue appeal is dismissed - - - - - Dated:- 2-11-2004 - Judge(s) : A. M. SAPRE., ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by A.M. Sapre J.- This decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other connected I.T.A. Nos. 66 of 1999, 84 of 1999 and 1 of 2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s pending?" It may be mentioned at the outset that other appeals are also filed by the Revenue against this very impugned order. However, in some appeals only one question of law is framed whereas in other appeals no question of law is framed. It was, however, conceded by learned counsel for the appellant that the questions of law framed in this appeal would equally apply for disposal of the other appeals - whether framed, or not. At the outset learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that so far as question No. 2 referred supra is concerned, the same stands already answered and decided against the Revenue by the decision of this court reported in J.P. Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 123 (since upheld by the Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and challenged the action of the Assessing Officer in allocating the depreciation in regard to the vehicles in question in the profits of two units, i.e., the main unit and unit No. 2. The case of the assessee was that the vehicles in question are owned by unit No. 1, they are used only by unit No. 1, i.e., for the activities of unit No. 1, that as and when these vehicles were needed by unit No. 2, the same were given by Unit No. 1 on hire to unit No. 2, that the amount received from unit No. 2 by unit No. 1 for the use of these vehicles was credited in the account books of unit No. 1. It is this factual issue which was gone into by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and eventually decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or can it be framed. Secondly, what is framed is an abstract question of law which in our humble view does not arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal. In other words, the benefit of section 80HH/80-I was granted to the assessee on a finding of fact recorded in relation to unit No. 2 by directing that there can be no allocation of depreciation inter se the two units because the vehicles in question belong to unit No. 1. We, thus, do not find any substantial question of law on this issue. Since, section 260A(4) of the Act enables us to examine this issue at the time of final hearing of the appeal and hence, we are inclined to hold that question No. 1 is not a substantial question of law which really arises out of the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
