Bombay Gow Rakshak Mandli, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationI.T.A. No. 5311/Mum/2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal, following its own coordinate bench decision in the assessee's case for the immediately succeeding assessment year, holds that the assessee is entitled to depreciation and the Assessing Officer must allow the rightful claim of depreciation, applying the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, 264 ITR 110, which the coordinate bench had relied upon. Where the assessee's deficit from earlier years has been brought forward, the Assessing Officer must first allow the brought-forward deficit and, if any deficit remains after that, allow it to be carried forward, the appeal on this issue being decided by adoption of the coordinate bench's reasoning on identical facts.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
सव ौी ड . मुमोहन, उपा य! एवं नरे ि कुमार %ब&लै(या, लेखा सदःय के सम!
BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND
SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5311/Mum/2012 िनधा रण वष / Assessment Year :2009-10 (िनधा
The ITO (E) 1(1), बनाम Bombay Gow Rakshak बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Mandli, Vs. Parel, 1415, Dalamal Towers, Mumbai-400 012 211, Free Press Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 ःथायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AAATB 3280B (अपीलाथ0 /Appellant) .. (ू2यथ0 / Respondent) अपीलाथ0 ओर से/ Appellant by: Shri Vivek Batra
ू2यथ0 क4 ओर से/Respondent by: Ms. I.A. Singh
सुनवाई क4 तार ख / Date of Hearing :10.03.2015 घोषणा क4 तार ख /Date of Pronouncement :10.03.2015
आदे श / O R D E R
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Mumbai dt. 25.6.2012 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10.
2 ITA No. 5311/M/2012 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow the claim of depreciation and further erred in directing the AO to allow carry forward and set off of the deficit of earlier years to the surplus of subsequent years.
3. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the issues stands covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2010-11 vide ITA No. 5508/M/2014.
4. The Ld. Departmental Representative could not bring any distinguishing decision in favour of the Revenue.
5. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We find force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel. The Tribunal in A.Y. 2010-11 had the occasion to consider identical issues in ITA No. 5508/M/14. In so far as the issue relating to the claim of depreciation is concerned, the Tribunal has considered this issue at para-40 of its order and at para-41 following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Institute of Banking Personnel Selection 264 ITR 110, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to allow the rightful claim of depreciation. Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case, we direct accordingly.
6. In so far as the issue relating to the carry forward of the deficit of earlier years is concerned, the Tribunal has considered this issue at para- 45 of its order and at para-46 directed the AO to allow the brought forward deficit and if the deficit still remains, allow it to be carried 3 ITA No. 5311/M/2012
forward. Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, we hold accordingly.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 10th March, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (D.MANMOHAN ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) उपा य! / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सदःय / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
मुंबई Mumbai; 9दनांक Dated : 10th March, 2015 व.िन.स./ RJ , Sr. PS व.िन.स./ RJ , Sr. PS
आदे श क4 ूितिल%प अमे%षत/Copy षत of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ0 / The Appellant
2. ू2यथ0 / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु;(अपील) / The CIT(A)-
4. आयकर आयु; / CIT
5. %वभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ ार BY ORDER, स2या%पत ूित //True Copy// उप/सहायक उप सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai 4 ITA No. 5311/M/2012
Date Initials
1. Draft dictated on: 10.03.2015 Sr. PS/PS
2. Draft placed before author: 11.03.2015 Sr. PS/PS
3. Draft proposed & placed JM/AM before the second member:
4. Draft discussed/approved by JM/AM Second Member:
5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr. Sr. PS/PS: PS/PS
6. Order pronounced on: Sr. PS/PS
7. File sent to the Bench Clerk:
8. Date on which file goes to Sr. the Head Clerk: PS/PS
9. Date on which file goes to AR
10. Date of dispatch of Order:
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free