9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wned by it and used for the residence of the Director? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to such depreciation even without verifying whether the benefit out of such accommodation has been shown as perquisite in the return of the director who is using the premises? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to such depreciation even without verifying whether any resolution was passed by the Board of Directors authorizing the Director to occupy the flat in question for his residential purposes? 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the year allowed the flat for occupation to its directors tor residence and continue trading activities from the said house. In the next year the flat was sold. This is the only year when the flat was given to the Director and depreciation has been claimed thereon, /f 6.2 The AR vehemently argued that the AO has disallowed the depreciation on the ground that the property is a residential asset and not put to use for business purposes. The appellant submits that the AO failed to consider the CBDT Circular no. 10/14/66-IT (Al) dt. 12.12.66, in which it has been clarified that quarters built by the employers for the accommodation of their employees must be regarded as buildings used for business and thus eligible for depreciation. 6.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the case laws relied upon by the AR, the appellant company deservces deprecation allowance and same is allowed. Therefore, Ground No. 1 is allowed. 6. Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. The ld. Departmental Representative supported the order's of the assessing officer. She further placed reliance upon the ITAT decision in the case of Shresth Securities P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (in ITA No. 4542/Mum/2009 dated 27.10.2010) 8. Per Contra, the learned counsel of the assessee supported the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the full bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee submitted that the issue has been raised in the grounds of appeal by the Revenue that the deprecation was not taken as perquisite in the hands of the directors. In this regard, learned counsel of the assessee submitted that this was not at all the case of the assessing officer. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that the said flat was owned by the company. It was used by the directors for residence. The case has also been made out that the assessee company is engaged into share trading and the said premises was also used by directors for official works of the company. Furthermore, the assessee's case is duly supported by the CBDT circular and Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
