Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (12) TMI 1067

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mmissioner of Income Tax' [2012 (4) TMI 115 - KERALA HIGH COURT]. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realising that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income Tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 which became effective from the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Delhi High Court has taken the view and rightly so, that the said amendment is prospective in nature. It also follows that once assessee is allowed depreciation, he shall be entitled to carry forward the depreciation as well. - Civil Appeal No. 7186 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2017 - C.A. No. 1453/2017 C.A. No. 1067/2017 C.A. No. 1565/2017 C.A. No. 3822/2017 C.A. No. 4452/2017 SLP(C) No. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Mr. Sushil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Vishakha, Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, Adv. Ms. Rudrakshi Deo, Adv. Mr. Ved Jain, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Praveena Gautam, AOR Mr. Jitesh Prakash Gupta, Adv. Ms. Anusueya, Adv. Mr. Dhanish Kumar, Adv. Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR Ms. Shruti Iyer, Adv. Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, Adv. Ms. Suriti Chowdhary, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Salil Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR Mr. Akshat Malpani, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR Mr. Jatin Zaveri, AOR Mr. H. D. Thanvi, Adv. Ms. Preeti Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Rishi Matoliya, AOR Mr. S. C. Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Jatin Zaveri, Adv. Mr. Neel Kam .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ome for charitable purposes, the assessees had virtually enjoyed a 100 per cent write off of the cost of assets and, therefore, the grant of depreciation would amount to giving double benefit to the assessee. Though it appears that in most of these cases, the CIT (Appeals) had affirmed the view, but the ITAT reversed the same and the High Courts have accepted the decision of the ITAT thereby dismissing the appeals of the Income Tax Department. From the judgments of the High Courts, it can be discerned that the High Courts have primarily followed the judgment of the Bombay High Court in 'Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)' [(2003) 131 Taxman 386 (Bombay)]. In the said judgment, the contentio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ection 29 provides that income from profits and gains of business ahll be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C. That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of building, plant and machinery owned by the assessee and used for business purposes. It further provides for deduction subject to section 34. In that matter also, a similar argument, as in the present case, was advanced on behalf of the revenue, namely, that depreciation can be allowed as deduction only under section 32 of the Income Tax Act and not under general principles. The Court rejected this argument. It was held that normal depreciation can be considered as a legitimate deduction in computing the real income of the assessee on general pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets. The assessee went in appeal before the Assistant Appellate Commissioner. The Appeal was rejected. The Tribunal, however, took the view that when the ITO stated that full expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets, what he really meant was that the amount spent on acquiring those assets had been treated as 'application of income' of the Trust in the year in which the income was spent in acquiring those assets. This did not mean that in computing income from those assets in subsequent years, depreciation in respect of those assets cannot be taken into account. This view .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates