TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old and relates to the A.Ys. 1996-97, we sustain the order of the CIT(A) partly as indicated above and the claim of the assessee is directed to be allowed as per the observations of the Ld.CIT(A) without any further verification by the Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2826/Mum/2017, CO No. 247/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 28-9-2018 - Sri Mahavir Singh, JM And Sri Ramit Kochar, AM For the Appellant : Shri DG Pansari, DR For the Respondent : Shri N.R. Agarwal, AR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: Out of these appeals, one appeal filed by the Revenue and another CO filed by the assessee, are arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Order which was earlier confirmed by the [4 CIT(A), particularly in view of the categorical findings of facts recorded by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order dtd. 21.10.2010, that the Authorized Representative has submitted only the old details again without any fresh supporting or explanations, therefore, the contention or findings of the Assessing Officer that the said transactions are sham or bogus are not disproved by the CIT(A)? 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee before AO and before CIT(A) filed the details of the assets purchased and leased to various parties. He also filed invoices of suppliers for purchase of assets along with confirmation from lessee for not claiming depreciation. A copy of chart as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] and M/s. Avasalara Technologies Ltd v. JCIT, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 2996 of 2004 and held as under: - 3.4. I have gone through the assessment order dated 21,10.2010 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the I.T. Act wherein the AO has not allowed depreciation claimed by the appellant of Rs, 62,47,500/- which is sustained as in the original order dated 30.03.1998 and the interest element of ₹ 1,07,76,404/- is assessed as appellant's income from finance business, The above order was passed as per the directions given by Hon ble ITAT 'E' Bench vide order ITA no. 2151/MUM/2000 dated 09.01.2004 where the ratio followed in the case of Mid-East Portfolio Management Ltd. Vs. DC1T (87 1TD 537) (Mum)(SB) in the appellant&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, could not claim any depreciation thereof. These are pure findings of facts recorded by the authorities below. No question of law arises. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. So considering the above submissions and legal decision relied by the appellant as well as the revenue, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant company is entitled to claim depreciation on the leased assets except for Nath Pulp Paper Mills Ltd. Though the AR of the appellant vehemently argues that the confirmation from Nath Pulp Paper Mills Ltd. has not claimed depreciation on the leased assets. I am not convinced by the above information having the supplier and the lessee found to be the same entity, the ratio followed in M/s. Ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime. In our considered view this direction of the Ld.CIT(A) will not serve any purpose as the Assessing officer in this case though set-aside to him twice to examine the transaction in detail he miserably failed to examine the transactions and therefore there is no point again directing the Assessing Officer to examine the transactions or part of the transactions for the purpose of allowing the claim of the assessee. Therefore, to that extent the observations of the Ld.CIT(A) are reversed and we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that assessee is eligible to claim depreciation from sale and lease back assets in respect of the transactions other than Nath Pulp Paper Mills Ltd. To put an end to the litigation in this case a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
