Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Petronet Vk Limited....Opponent(S) on 10 February, 2014
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sonia Gokani
O/TAXAP/43/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 43 of 2014
WITH
TAX APPEAL NO. 44 of 2014
WITH
TAX APPEAL NO. 45 of 2014
================================================================
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s)
Versus
PETRONET VK LIMITED....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PRANAV G DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL
KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA
GOKANI
Date : 10/02/2014
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Incometax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated August 23, 2013, raising the following question for our consideration :
"Whether on the facts and in the Page 1 of 3 O/TAXAP/43/2014 ORDER circumstances of the case, ITAT is justified in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on depreciation of telecom system and holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation ?"
2. The question pertains to depreciation claimed by the assessee on installation of a telecom system. The Revenue contends that such telecom system was not installed and put to use during the assessment year 200506 under consideration. The Tribunal reversed the finding of the Assessing Officer confirmed by the CIT (Appeals), observing that "There is no dispute that the system in question was put to use by the assessee which is evident from the certificate of IOCL dated 07.05.2003. We are, therefore, of the view that the assessee is entitled to full depreciation for the Assessment Years 200506 and subsequent years in accordance with the law."
3. The learned counsel for the Revenue, however, vehemently contended that the Tribunal was not correct in observing that as an undisputed fact Page 2 of 3 O/TAXAP/43/2014 ORDER the assessee has put the telecom system to use. If that be so, it would be open to the Revenue to point out the same to the Tribunal in Rectification Application.
4. With above observation, the Tax Appeals are disposed of, leaving the main question open.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) Aakar Page 3 of 3