| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2926 (Del-Trib) : (2020) 207 TTJ 0369 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 32(1)
AO's only objection as regards allowability of depreciation was that assets had not been put to use and that the assessee could not furnish comparative results, however, provisions of section 32 do not mandate such requirement and therefore, disallowance was not justified.
|
Depreciation - Allowability - Asset not put to use -
Assessee claimed depreciation in respect of energy saving and pollution control equipment. AO disallowed assessee's claim on the ground that it was not put to use.Held: No adverse observation had been made by AO with respect to the purchase and installation of energy saving and pollution control equipment. Also, assessee had submitted certificates from Chartered Engineers to the effect that assets purchased fall within the category of Air Pollution Control Equipment, Water Control Equipment, Energy Saving Devices and Renewable Energy Devices. These certificates submitted by assessee had been taken note of by AO but had not been commented upon. AO's only objection was that assets had not been put to use and that the assessee could not furnish comparative results, however, provisions of section 32 do not mandate such requirement. To assume that having purchased and installed energy saving devices and pollution control equipment but not putting same to use was thus, just a baseless surmise and conjecture which stood negated by certificates from the Chartered Engineers and therefore, disallowance was not justified.
REFERRED : CIT v. Insilco Ltd. reported in 2009 ITOL 115-HC-DEL : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0386 (Del-HC)
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2009-10
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 32(1)
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|