T.D. Sugla, J.
1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessment of the assessee, a company, for 1972-73, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee has an option to claim or not to claim depreciation and that the Income Tax Officer was not entitled in law to allow depreciation when the assessee has not supplied the particulars for grant of depreciation allowance as required by section 34 of the"
2. Counsel are agreed that the issue involved herein is covered by our courts judgment case of CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. : [1989]177ITR443(Bom) , in favour of the assessee. Following the said decision, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
3. No order as to costs.
Are you looking for a
legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a
legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and
Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kolhapur Oxygen Acetylene Private
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kolhapur Oxygen Acetylene Private
(High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)
Income Tax Reference No. 28 Of 1977 | 20-02-1991
Advocate List
- For Petitioner : Commissioner
- For Respondent : P.S. Jetley, Adv.
Bench
- HONBLE JUSTICE D.R. DHANUKA
- HONBLE JUSTICE T.D. SUGLA, JJ.
Eq Citations
- [1991] 190 ITR 574 (BOM)
- LQ/BomHC/1991/142
Head Note
Income Tax — Depreciation — Assessee has an option to claim or not to claim depreciation — Assessee has not supplied the particulars for grant of depreciation allowance as required by S. 34 of the Act — Income Tax Officer not entitled to allow depreciation — CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. : [1989]177 ITR 443(Bom) , followed
