| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 0931 (Pune-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 32
When Department, except for relying on order of AO, could not place any material on record to demonstrate that order passed by Tribunal in the case of assessee's sister concern was reversed or modified by High Court in any manner, thus, assessee was entitled to claim depreciation.
|
Depreciation - Intangible asset - Depreciation on the asset 'Right to collect toll' -
Assessee claimed depreciation @ 25% on the asset termed as 'License to Collect Toll', being an intangible asset. AO alleged that assessee was not entitled to claim such depreciation. CIT(A) granted the benefit of depreciation by relying on certain Tribunal orders in case of assessee's sister concern, against which Revenue had filed appeal before Tribunal. Held: CIT(A) allowed the benefit of depreciation @25% on intangible asset designated by the assessee as 'Right to collect toll' by relying on certain Tribunal orders passed in the case of assessee's sister concern. Similar view was taken by Special Bench of Tribunal in ACIT v. Progressive Construction Limited [(2018) 92 taxmann.com 104 (Hyderabad-Tribunal (SB) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5287 (Hyd-Trib)]. Department, except for relying on order of AO, could not place any material on record to demonstrate that order passed by Tribunal in the case of assessee's sister concern was reversed or modified by High Court in any manner.
Followed:Asstt. CIT v. M/s. Progressive Constructions Ltd. (2018) 92 taxmann.com 104 (Hyderabad-Tribunal) (SB) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5287 (Hyd-Trib)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|