Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI LALIET KUMAR
This is an appeal filed by the revenue directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-14, LTU, Bengaluru [CIT(A)], dated 30/01/2017 for the assessment year 201-13.
The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal:
3. Ground Nos.1 and 4 are general in nature and do not require any adjudication. Ground No.2 challenges the finding of the CIT(A) that the provisions of section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] are not applicable to a banking company. This issue is covered against the revenue by the ratio of the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the assessee’s own case in dated 15/09/2017 for the assessment year 2009-10 wherein, it has been held as under:
“13. Ground of appeal No.5 is on the applicability of the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. This issue had come up before the co- ordinate bench in the case of assessee for asst. year 2005-06 in dated 18/06/2012 wherein it was held as follows:
Page 3 of 4 In the light of this decision, we do not find any fallacy in the order of the CIT(A) CIT(A). Hence, we dismiss this ground of appeal.
Ground No.3 is also covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 in dated 15/09/2017. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: “11. Ground of appeal No.3 relates to depreciation on leased assets to Kedia group of companies. This issue is only consequential in nature, as in the earlier years viz., 2008-09 and 2007-08, we allowed the claim vide order dated 13/07/2016 in Misc.Petn.Nos.42 & 43/Bang/2016 in ITA Nos.684/Bang/2012 & 813/Bang/2011. This ground of appeal is dismissed.”
Respectfully following the same, we dismiss ground No.3 since issue of depreciation on leased assets is only consequential in nature and also for reasons of parity, decision for earlier years requires to be followed. Ground No.3 is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.