M/S. CLC TANNERS ASSOCIATION,TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS SOUTH vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1(1) EXEMPTION, KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the statement of income and expenditure and the list of fixed assets did not show the acquisition of fixed assets as an application of income. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation. The AO was directed to grant the benefit of depreciation as claimed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a trust, claimed depreciation of Rs.40,48,460/- in its return of income for the assessment year 2018-2019. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this claim on the grounds that the acquisition of assets was claimed as an application of income, not a capital expenditure eligible for depreciation. The assessee's representative argued that this was incorrect and drew attention to the fixed asset register and past assessment orders.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on assets when the acquisition was not treated as an application of income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Income Tax Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2018-2019.
It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee is a trust which is is entered into a tripartite agreement with the Government of West Bengal ad the BOT Agency of Calcutta Leather Companies for various works. It was submission that the during the impugned assessment year the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs.40,48,460/- in its return of income. The AO had disallowed the assessee’s claim of the depreciation on the ground that the depreciation cannot be granted in respect of assets. The acquisition which have been claimed as application of income. The Ld.AR drew my attention to various pages of the paper book, most specifically at page 28 which is the copy of the fixed assets, which reads as follows:-
It was submission that during the impugned assessment year the assessee has the made addition of fixed assets of only Rs.2,58,743/-. It was submission that the other assets which have also been acquired in the earlier years have never been claimed as application. The Ld.AR further drew my attention to the income expenditure account at page 27 for the impugned assessment year which reads as follows:-
It was submission that the assessee has not claimed application of income in respect of the assessee required. It was submission that the assessee is entitled to claim of depreciation. The Ld.AR also drew my attention to the assessment orders for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2013-14 where the AO himself has granted the assessee’s depreciation on the assets. It was submission that the assessee may be granted depreciation as claimed.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
