(M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 5941 of 2012, decided on April 20, 2023
A.C.I.T Kheda Circle Nadiad _____________________ Appellant;
v.
G.E. Lighting (I) P. Ltd. _________________________ Respondent.
With
C.A. No. 8488/2012
Civil Appeal No. 5941 of 2012 and C.A. No. 8488/2012
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Application for amendment of cause title in C.A. No. 8488/2012 is allowed.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 08.03.2010 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad passed in Tax Appeal No. 325 of 2009 and order dated 25.04.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Tax Case (Appeal) No. 442 of 2005, by which the High Court has dismissed the said Appeals preferred by the Revenue, the Revenue has preferred the present appeals.
3. The High Court in C.A. No. 5941 of 2022 considered the following questions of law:—
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in reversing the decision of the CIT(A), whereby the claim of the depreciation was allowed to the assessee as per its original return of income, which was also in consonance with the clarificatory explanation-5 to clause (ii) of Section 32(1) inserted vide Finance Act?”
Alternatively
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee has validly withdrawn its claim for deduction of depreciation, the same cannot be thrust upon the assessee in the Assessment Year 1999-2000?”
4. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahendra Mills, 243 ITR 56, the High Court has dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Revenue.
5. Shri N. Venkataraman, learned ASG, appearing for the Revenue has heavily relied upon Explanation 5 to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, we are of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Explanation 5 to Section 32(1) shall not come to the rescue of the Revenue.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference of this Court is called for.
7. Hence, both the Appeals stand dismissed.
———
