TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight have been put to use for less than 180 days and in that situation, only 50% of depreciation is allowable and as a result, even if depreciation is allowed @ 100%, in fact, only 50% will be allowed in the earlier year and the balance 50% is to be allowed in the present year. Therefore, merely on this basis that there is opening balance of WDV, it cannot be concluded that 100% depreciation was not allowed in the earlier year. Hence we feel it proper to restore the matter back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision - Appeal filed by the assessee allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.862/Bang/2017 - - - Dated:- 31-8-2018 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that where there are divergent views are possible, the view favouring the assessee needs to be adopted under the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Without prejudice, the. disallowance of depreciation is against the principles of consistency as the depreciation has been allowed in the earlier assessment years. 8. Without prejudice, the authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that the shuttering and centering materials are in the nature of consumables and consequently the expenses incurred on the same ought to have been allowed as deduction under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The appellant denies itself liable to be levied interest under section 234B of the Act and further the computation of int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the facts of the case. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 5. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of equity and justice. 4. It is submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the disallowance of depreciation in the present year is against the principles of consistency as the depreciation has been allowed in the earlier assessment years. Reliance has been placed by him on Tribunal order rendered in the case of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT as reported in [2015] 171 TTJ 353 (Lucknow-Trib.) and it was pointed out that in that case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee's contentions and we are of the view that the assessee has been maintaining proper books of account and in the light of the nature of activities undertaken by the assessee, we find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee that at every site temporary constructions are made and a particular percentage of expenditure is debited to the account under the head temporary site accommodation and whatever materials were left out from the site they are being reutilized further. Therefore, no excess claim was raised by the assessee. Since no disallowance was ever made in earlier assessment years, we find no justification in the disallowance made in this very assessment year, as the AO cannot blow not and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re will be no opening balances brought forward from the earlier year but it may be that shuttering and centering material which was put to use in the earlier year, 100% depreciation might have been claimed and allowed and only those material not put to use in the earlier year might have been brought forward in the present year. This may also be a fact that part of the assets might have been put to use for less than 180 days and in that situation, only 50% of depreciation is allowable and as a result, even if depreciation is allowed @ 100%, in fact, only 50% will be allowed in the earlier year and the balance 50% is to be allowed in the present year. Therefore, merely on this basis that there is opening balance of WDV, it cannot be concluded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
