In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax -8 Mumbai v. M/S Olympus Elevators Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was eligible for depreciation in respect of intangible asset valued at Rs.39.24 crore instead of depreciation value at Rs.2.91 crore as held by the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) is the question raised in this appeal 2.The ITAT...
Decision: The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Ladda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 4598 of 2010.
The Commissioner of Income-tax -8 Mumbai
... Appellant.
Versus
M/s Olympus Elevators Pvt Ltd
... Respondent.
Mr Suresh Kumar for the appellant.
Dr K. Shivram with Mr Ajay R. Singh for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.R. Joshi, JJ.
DATE : 2 December, 2011.
P.C. :-
1.Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was eligible for depreciation in respect of intangible asset valued at Rs.39.24 crore instead of depreciation value at Rs.2.91 crore as held by the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) is the question raised in this appeal
2.The ITAT in para 9 of its order has recorded a finding that the assessee had paid Rs.36.5 crore and had incurred liability to the extent of 33.15 crore. Thus, the total consideration for acquiring the asset was Rs. 69.65 crore and the assessee had received total liabilities and current asset including good will at
Ladda
33.41 crore. Accordingly, the ITAT has held that the balance amount of Rs.39.24 crore (Rs. 69.65 crore minus Rs. 30.41 crore) were the tangible assets on which the assessee was entitled for depreciation. The decision of the ITAT is based on a finding of fact. No substantial question of law is raised. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(A.R.Joshi,J)
(J.P.Devadhar,J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.