ACIT 27(3), NAVI MUMBAI vs. VIJAYEE INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING CO, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3823/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 February 2017AY 2010-117 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the evidence on record, including certificates from MSEDCL and MEDA, clearly indicated the wind mill was commissioned on 30.09.2009. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to full depreciation.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation on a wind mill commissioned on 30.09.2009. The AO disallowed full depreciation, stating it was commissioned after 30.09.2009. The CIT(A) allowed full depreciation based on certificates from government agencies.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct date of commissioning of the wind mill for claiming depreciation. The Tribunal had to decide whether the AO's disallowance or the CIT(A)'s allowance of depreciation was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

Hearing: 25.1.2017

O R D E R

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →