TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee is entitled to depreciation on the enhanced cost at which the assessee has taken over the assets and direct the AO to allow the depreciation as claimed by the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 623/MUM/2019 - - - Dated:- 16-3-2020 - Shri Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) And Shri N.K. Pradhan (Accountant Member) For the Assessee : Shri Rashmikant C. Modi, AR For the Revenue : Smt. Jotilakshmi Nayak,DR ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2010-11. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] and arises out of the assessment made u/s 143(3) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... normal income is higher than the tax payable u/s 115JB of the Act, the AO considered the income of ₹ 28,11,45,540/- as per normal provisions as total income of the assessee. During year under consideration, the assessee had claimed normal depreciation of ₹ 19,69,19,145/- and additional depreciation of ₹ 2,68,99,747/- (total depreciation of ₹ 22,38,18,892/-). The AO found that on conversion of partnership firm into private limited company w.e.f. 01.09.2007, the erstwhile firm had claimed depreciation upto 31.08.2007 and the depreciation is claimed in the case of the company from 01.09.2007 to 31.03.2008 for AY 2008-09 on the basis of WDV of the assets. However, as evident from the schedule of fixed assets annexed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said WDV at ₹ 5,17,40,452/- and claimed depreciation at 80%, (iv) the assessee had claimed depreciation far in excess of the actual cost of the assets, (v) the Income Tax Act, nowhere provides for depreciation on the basis of revaluation. The AO thus calculated that the assessee is entitled to depreciation amounting to ₹ 16,66,94,997/- as against the claim of ₹ 22,38,18,892/-. Thus the AO made a disallowance of ₹ 5,71,23,915/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). We find that vide order dated 20.07.2016, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by following similar disallowance made by the AO for AY 2009-10 in the assessee s own case, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amining and considering the cases law as relied by the ld AR and ld DR we find that the assessee is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the cases relied by the ld AR whereas the decisions referred and relied by the ld DR are distinguishable in facts and therefore not applicable in the instant case of the assessee. Accordingly we set aside the order of CIT(A) and hold that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the enhanced cost at which the assessee has taken over the assets and direct the AO to allow the depreciation as claimed by the assessee of Rs,35,21,38,615/-. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 6.1 We further find that same issue arose before the ITAT D Bench, Mumbai in assessee s own cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
