2009 (8) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as bogus. This submission cannot be accepted. There is nothing to substantiate this argument. Regular assessment had been done under Section 143(3) of the Act and depreciation was held to be admissible. It has been held that the assessee purchased the asset and leased out the same in the course of its business. Rectification was permissible only if there was error apparent on the face of the reco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... existed in possession of the assessee? 2. In the order of assessment, claim of the assessee for depreciation was allowed. Later, it was alleged that depreciation was not allowable as the asset did not exist and on that ground, depreciation had been disallowed in the earlier assessment year. Accordingly, notice under Section 154 of the Act was issued and order of rectification, disallowing th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... et itself did not exist and thus, the claim of the assessee was bogus. This submission cannot be accepted. There is nothing to substantiate this argument. Regular assessment had been done under Section 143(3) of the Act and depreciation was held to be admissible. It has been held that the assessee purchased the asset and leased out the same in the course of its business. Rectification was permiss .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X