Case Law Details
After perusing the above provisions of the Act, more specifically section 2(11) of the Act, one thing that evidently becomes clear is that in the Income Tax Act, there are only two categories of class of assets i.e., Tangible and Intangible and within the same class, various block of assets are covered. In the instant case, on going through the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is observed that he has failed to appreciate the fact that section 2(11) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 specifies as only two class of assets i.e., tangible and intangible assets and within these two classes of assets, assets having same rate of depreciation are prescribed and they fall within the same block. Whereas, the concept of an asset falling within the same block is driven by the same rate of depreciation once it falls in the same class of assets and namely there are only two classes of assets tangible assets and intangible assets.
Full Text of the ITAT Order is as follows:-
This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 7-10-2016, which order has been passed after the order of the ITAT in the first round of proceedings dated 13-2-2016. In the first round of proceedings, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not admitted the appeal of the assesse company on account of delay in filing the appeal, however pursuant to the directions of the ITAT in the first round of proceedings, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has condoned the said delay and has decided the issue on merits and as such, the impugned appeal is filed pertaining to assessment year 2007-08 on the following grounds :–
1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in sustaining the short term capital gain assessed by assessing officer at Rs. 72,81,594 as against short term capital gain of Rs. 7,87,982, as declared by the appellant.
1.1 That in doing so, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has arrived at the erroneous conclusion that the full value of consideration of Rs. 1.15 crores received by the appellant towards sale of its restaurant consisting of Building, Furniture and Fixtures (Rs 1,00,00,000) and Plant and Machinery (Rs 15,00,000) has been split on account of sale of building, furniture & fixtures, (under one block) and plant & machinery (under different block).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
