WADIA GHANDY & CO.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(3)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 676/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 March 2019AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the claim of depreciation on tenancy rights had been decided against the assessee in its own cases for earlier assessment years. Therefore, following the coordinate bench's order, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation on tenancy rights for AY 2014-15. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, and the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. The assessee argued that tenancy rights are a form of license.

What were the issues?

Whether depreciation is allowable on tenancy rights. Whether tenancy rights can be considered a license for the purpose of depreciation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Appellant: Mr. Parth Desai, AR
For Respondent: Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19/03/2019Pronounced: 27/03/2019

ORDER

PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2014-15. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).

2.

The grounds of appeal

filed by the assessee read as under:

1. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the Assessing Officer’s action of disallowance of depreciation on tenancy rights of Rs.2,72,076/-.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that tenancy rights were a form of license.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →