Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

DCIT, Central Circle 7 (3) , Mumbai Versus M/s. Nepean Holding Reality LLP

2017 (11) TMI 992 - ITAT MUMBAI

Claim of depreciation - there was no working during the year - Held that:- As during the year under consideration the assessee has business receipts in the nature of sales in the preceding as well as subsequent years and it has made purchases during the relevant previous year and in the earlier year as well as subsequent years, except F.Y. 2011-12. Also found that the purchase invoice for the relevant P.Y. and the Sales invoice for the Preceding P.Y. bore the address of the said Bandra premises. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of G.N. Agarwal [1993 (8) TMI 5 - BOMBAY High Court]. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 5094/Mum/2017 - Dated:- 15-11-2017 - Shri R. C. Sharma, AM Revenue by : Ms. N. Hemalatha Assessee by : Shri Manish J Shah ORDER Per R. C. Sharma ( A. M ) This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A)-49, Mumbai dated 24/05/2017 for A.Y.2013-14, in the matter of order passed u/s.250 of the IT Act. 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. During the course of as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ound that the building/premise at Bandra, purchased in the earlier year, was not used for the purpose of any business activity during the A.Y.2013-14 since there is no credit of any business receipts to the profit and loss account. The A.O. has also observed civil/furniture work etc was going on in the said newly purchased premises and the asset was neither ready to use nor it had been put to use for the purpose of the business during the year. 6.2. From the details and submissions filed by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

premises included furnitures and fixtures and office equipments and appliances as per Annexure T' to the agreement which included ACs, security system, lift, telephone system, sound system, electrical installation etc. Further, I find that depreciation on the said building premises was allowed in the A.Y.2012-13, which is the assessment year relevant to the year of purchase, vide assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 26.2.2015. 6.2.1. The appellant is engaged in the business of trading of painti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat the appellant has engaged in the business of dealing in paintings and artefacts and the same is going concern. The appellant has also submitted that it had stock of painting as well as other artefacts which had been stored7displayed in the said building premises during the year and it amounted to the use of the building for the business purpose. I find that the appellant's address has been mentioned as 36 Turner Road, Bandra (W) in the purchase bill / tax invoice dated 1.3.2013 relevant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the said assessment year cannot be a sufficient ground to hold that there was no business activity of the appellant from the said building. 6.2.2. In fact, even if it is held that there is a temporary lull in the business activity, the same cannot be a ground for disallowing the entire depreciation claimed by the appellant which include depreciation on the building/office in Block No.1 of the block of assets as well as the depreciation on furniture, fixture and electrical installation in Block .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

While allowing the claim for depreciation and other expenses the Hon'ble High Court adjudicated as under; "The Tribunal has referred to the judgments in Capital Bus Setvice (supra), CIT Vs. Refrigeration and Allied Industries Ltd. (supra) & CIT Vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd. (supra) and has applied the ratio laid down therein to the facts of the present case. The ratio in brief is that it is not X necessary that the plant and machinery owned by the assessee should be actually put to use i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ne. There should be evidence or material to show that the assessee took efforts to keep the business alive in the hope of reviving the same. Maintaining the office and establishment, complying with the statutory formalities, not disposing of the plant and machinery, incurring expenses on the repair of plant and machinery etc. are some of the indications of nurturing the hopes of reviving the business. The above are only illustrative instances and are by no means exhaustive and the question as to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

disallowance in respect of section 41(2) read with Sec.28(i) of the I.T, Act 1961, corresponding to Section 10(2) (vii), read with section 10(i) of the I.T. Act 1922 in respect of A.Y. 1945-46. Similarly the decision in the case of Dinesh Kumar Gulabchand Agarwal 267 ITR 768 is based on different facts of the case and is distinguishable. 6.3. In view of above discussion, it is held that the building premise at 36 Turner Road belonging to the appellant was used for the purpose of business during .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version