Dismissed

Jcit Range 1 ,Muzaffarpur v. Kanhaiya Prasad

Patna HC21 Apr 2015MA/707/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous appeal, the Patna High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Income Tax Department against an order of the Income Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal had directed the department to separately allow depreciation under Section 32. The Court found no reason to disagree with the Tribunal's view and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the order of the Tribunal directing separate allowance of depreciation is maintained.

Jcit Range 1 ,Muzaffarpur Vs Kanhaiya Prasad — Income Tax | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

Patna High Court MA No.707 of 2010 (2) dt.21-04-2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.707 of 2010

¶3

====================================================== Jcit Range 1 ,Muzaffarpur .... .... Appellant/s Versus Kanhaiya Prasad .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Archana Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA) 2 21-04-2015 Heard learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant, Income Tax Department. The appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.03.2010 passed by the Income Tax Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in I.T.A. No. 10/PAT/2010 with respect to the assessment year 2005-2006. The appeal before the Tribunal was filed by the assessee raising various grounds and only on one of the grounds, the appeal was allowed, namely, the Assessing Officer and the C.I.T. (Appeal) had wrongly not directed the depreciation to be separately allowed when net profit has been estimated and the Assessing Officer was accordingly directed by the Tribunal to allow the depreciation provided the assessee has made a claim to

¶4

Patna High Court MA No.707 of 2010 (2) dt.21-04-2015

¶5

the aforesaid effect before the Assessing Officer in terms of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to assail the aforesaid order but the said contention of the revenue is in fact contrary to the Circular No. 29D(XIX-14) of 1965 issued by the CBDT. The Tribunal has also relied upon several earlier decisions of the Tribunal including in the assessee’s own case.

¶7

We do not see any reason to disagree with the view taken by

¶8

the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises in the matter.

¶9

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶10

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)

¶11

(Anjana Mishra, J)

¶12

Saif/-Jagdish

¶13

Jcit Range 1 ,Muzaffarpur v. Kanhaiya Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jcit Range 1 ,Muzaffarpur v. Kanhaiya Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs the Commissioner, Central Exci

M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs the Commissioner, Central Exci

Geeta Devi Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna and Ors.

Lalita Devi @ Lalita Sagar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Er. Sanjay Kumar Jha Chairman State Of Bihar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sobodh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.