9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead as under : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 5,71,92,626/- by granting depreciation u/s 32 to the extent of Rs. 16,66,94,997/- as against Rs. 22,38,18,892/- claimed by the Appellant Company. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the Original Cost of Fixed Assets to the erstwhile firm less depreciation allowed to the erstwhile firm as Written Down Value as on 01.04.2008 instead of the enhanced value of assets as paid by the Appellant Company as the Written Down Value as on 01.04.2009 for allowing depreciation u/s 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2007 (when it was a firm) by a sum of Rs. 61,36,23,130/-. The AO noted that depreciation was not claimed in the case of the firm, as well as in the case of the company for AY 2008-09, in respect of the revaluation of assets. However, for AY 2009-10, the assessee-company claimed depreciation on the enhanced value of assets as per the revaluation of assets made as on 30.06.2007 by the firm. In response to a query raised by the AO to explain as to why depreciation may not be restricted to the WDV of the assets, which would have been the value prior to the revaluation, the assessee filed a reply. However, the AO was not convinced with the said reply for the reasons recorded while making the disallowance in AY 2009-10. To summarise, the reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA No. 3861/Mum/2014 and submits that the order of the Coordinate Bench be followed. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) relies on the order of the learned CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. As mentioned earlier the learned CIT(A) has followed the order of his predecessor-in-office for AY 2009-10 and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) for AY 2009-10, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The only ground of appeal was against the "confirmation of disallowance of depreciation to the tune of Rs. 22,28,71,726/- by upholding the order of the AO allowing depreciation of Rs. 12,92,66,889/- as against claimed by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred and followed his decision for A.Y. 2010-11, wherein he had referred to this decision of Ld. CIT(A) is assessee case for AY 2009-10. 9. Since the issue has been decided by the ITAT in earlier year in assessee's favour the disallowance of depreciation by the AO for this year is not sustainable as the same is consequential to the depreciation allowed and W.D.V of assets in earlier year. All the issues raised by the AO has been elaborately decided by the ITAT is assessee's favour. It is not the case that Hon'ble Bombay High Court has reversed the decision of ITAT as above. 10. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent we set aside the order of authorities below and hold that disallowance of depreciation by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
