Ita/464/2009 Of M/S Mac Charles (India) Ltd v. The Assistatn Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU Dated this the 3[rd ]day of February 2015) PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR ANTI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA ITA No. 464 of 2009 BBRTW BB M/s Mac Charles (India) Ltd.,P.B.No. 174No.28, Sankey RoadBangalore-560 052Represented by itsManaging DirectorMs. Sangeetha C PardhananiAged about 40 yearsD/o Mr. C.B. Pardhanani .. Appellan (By Sri Gurunath for Sri. S Parthasarathy, Advocate) AND: The Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Circle-12(1)14/3, Rastrothana Bhavan.4[th]Floor, Nrupathunga Road Opp. Reserve Bank of IndiaBangalore — 560 OOQ2 ... Respondent (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate) This ITA filed U/s. 260A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of|order dated 30.04.2009 passed in ITA No.987/BNG/2008 for|the Assessment Year 2001-02, praying that this Hon'ble|Court may be pleased to (i) formulate the substantial|questions of law stated therein, (ii) allow the appeal and set|aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore in ITA|No.98/7/BNG/2008 dated 30.04.2009 in the interest ofjustice and equity. ThisITA|comingOT)forhearingthisN. KUMAR J.,delivered the following: day, JU DBGMENT The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging theorder passed by the Tribunal upholding the order passed by|the authorities declining to grant the benefit of deduction ofdepreciation. 2.The material on record shows that the property| in respect of which depreciation is sought for is not shown tobelonging to the assessee. The entire claim is based on| certain deductions being given in the previous year and oneon the basis of the electricity bills. 3.When depreciation is sought for in respect of immovable property, the assessee owes an obligation toproduce the document to show the acquisition of the saidproperty. It is only thereafter granting depreciation wouldarise. The said fundamental factor having not beenestablished, the authorities were justified in denying thebenefit. In that view of the matter, we do not see any'justification to interfere with the well considered orderpassed by the authorities.No merits. Dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE