(Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
Awasthi Traders ________________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
Commissioner of Income-Tax-I, Agra and Anr. ________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No(s). 8481 of 2016 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27718/2014], decided on August 30, 2016
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 8738 of 2016 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)…CC No. 10169/2014], Civil Appeal No(s). 8739 of 2016 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14325/2014], Civil Appeal No(s). 8740 of 2016 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15210/2014], Civil Appeal No(s). 8741 of 2016 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15352/2014], Civil Appeal No(s). 8742 of 2016 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15447/2014], Civil Appeal No(s). 8743 of 2016 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2720/2016], Civil Appeal No(s). 8744 of 2016 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22533/2014]
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
C.A. No…..@ SLP(C) No. 27718/2014
1. Leave granted.
2. Admittedly, the proviso to Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) is applicable to the appellant-assesse in view of the fact that its income for the assessment year in question, i.e. 2009-2010, is above Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs only). If that is so, the bar to the entitlement for depreciation under Section 44A(2) of the Act will not apply. Grant of depreciation under Section 32 of the Act would, therefore, become mandatory.
3. The above facts have been over looked by the High Court in holding that Section 44AD is applicable to the case of the appellant-assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court as well as the order of the assessment and direct that necessary steps be taken in accordance with law so far as the assessment year 2009-2010 is concerned.
4. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
C.A. Nos…..@ SLP(C)…CC No. 10169/2014, SLP(C) Nos. 14325/2014, 15210/2014, 15352/2014, 15447/2014, 2720/2016 and 22533/2014
5. Delay condoned.
6. Leave granted.
7. The order passed in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 27718 of 2014 shall govern these cases also. However, if on verification, it is found that the income of the assessee(s) is less than Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs only) and, therefore, the proviso to Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has application implication, the respondents may seek modification of this order.
8. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27718/2014
Awasthi Traders ____________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Commissioner of Income-Tax-I, Agra and Anr ________ Respondent(s)
WITH
S.L.P.(C)…CC No. 10169/2014
SLP(C) No. 14325/2014
SLP(C) No. 15210/2014
SLP(C) No. 15352/2014
SLP(C) No. 15447/2014
SLP(C) No. 2720/2016
SLP(C) No. 22533/2014
Date: 30/08/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
(Before Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. H. Raghavendra Rao, Adv.
Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv.
Ms. Mukti Choudhary, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
9. Delay condoned.
10. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
11. As a sequel to the above, all pending interlocutory applications are also disposed of.
———
