Case Law Details
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the amount of Rs.3.76 Crores (wrongly written by ITAT as 3.76 lacs) being capital expenditure not represented by any assets to the assessee?
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in treating the amount of Rs.3.76 Crores as revenue expenditure?
Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the respondent/assessee to raise additional grounds?
Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing depreciation on non-operating plant and machinery?
It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that unless a particular asset is used for the purpose of business or provision, depreciation is not allowed. No doubt, as per Section 32(1) of the Act, in order to be entitled to claim depreciation, the asset is to be owned by the assessee and it is also to be used for the purpose of business or profession. However, the expression “used for the purpose of business” when applied to block asset would mean use of block asset and not any specific building machinery, plant or furniture in the said block asset as individual assets have lost their identity after becoming inseparable part of the block asset. That is the only manner in which various provisions can be harmonized.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
