SAIDPUR JUTE COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE- 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6422/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 August 2021AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to ensure a consistent view, as the appeal for the previous year was still pending. The assessee will be granted an opportunity to present its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed 80% depreciation on assets of a Solar Power Generating System. The Assessing Officer allowed higher depreciation on some items but denied it on others, following the treatment in the previous assessment year.

What were the issues?

Whether higher depreciation can be claimed on all components of a Solar Power Generating System, and ensuring consistency with prior year's treatment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri Haresh Purushottamdas
For Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa– Ld. Sr. DR

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

The sole grievance of the assessee in captioned appeal for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 is the fact that depreciation claimed by the assessee at higher rate of 80% on certain capital asset has been denied by lower authorities.

2.

Upon hearing, it transpires that AY 2014-15 is the first year of such claim and the appeal for that year is pending before learned first

appellate authority. The Ld. DR submitted that the appeal may be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to take a consistent view in the matter. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee be allowed hearing to substantiate the claim.

3.

The material facts are that the assessee claimed depreciation of 80% on all assets forming part of Solar Power Generating System. Though Ld. AO allowed higher depreciation on main items, however, such higher depreciation was denied on remaining items as done in AY 2014-15. The stand of Ld. AO, upon confirmation by Ld. CIT(A), is in further challenge before us.

4.

It is evident that AY 2014-15 is the first year of such claim and Ld. AO has followed the findings of AY 2014-15 in this year. Since the appeal for AY 2014-15 is already pending before learned first appellate authority, we deem it fit to restore this appeal also back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to take consistent stand in the matter. Needless to add that sufficient opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee before adjudicating the issue.

5.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 25th August, 2021. (Vikas Awasthy) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) न्याययक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; यदनांक Dated : 25/08/2021 Sr.PS, Dhananjay

आदेशकीप्रधिधलधपअग्रेधर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT– concerned 5. यवभागीयप्रयतयनयध, आयकरअपीलीयअयधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard File

आदेशाि सार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पुंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 32

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →