MAHILA SIDH NIRMAN YOJNA Vs. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
G.D. Agarwal, Accountant Member -
(1.) THESE two appeals, one by the assessee and another by the revenue are directed against the order of CIT(A)-XIV, New Delhi. For the sake of convenience both the appeals are disposed of by this common order.
(2.) The only ground taken in the departmental appeal is as under :
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the depreciation is allowable during the year.
The assessee debited depreciation of Rs. 5,19,530 in the income and expenditure account. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) disallowed the claim of depreciation on the ground that the entire capital expenditure on acquiring fixed asset was allowable under Section 11 in earlier years, therefore, the question of allowing depreciation does not arise.
On appeal, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ghalib Institute [ITA No. 2314 (Delhi) of 1983] as also Karnataka High Court, in the case of CIT v. Society of Sisters of St. Anne  146 ITR 28. Against the order of CIT(A) revenue is in appeal before us.
(3.) AT the time of hearing before us the learned DR relied upon the order of Assessing Officer and submitted that when the entire capital expenditure itself is allowable under Section 11, in the year when fixed asset was acquired the disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer was justified. She further submitted that again allowing of depreciation would amount to double deduction on the same asset.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.