AO allowed assessee’s claim for additional depreciation. CIT passed revision order and directed the AO to reframe assessment .Tribunal setaside the revisional order. High Court affirmed the order of Tribunal following the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Continental Ware Housing Corporation (Nhava Sheva Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 645 (Bom.) (HC) and CIT v. Murli Agro Products Ltd. (2014) 49 taxmann.com 172 (Bom.)(HC). Revenue authorities, however, pointed out that Karnataka High Court in Canara Housing Development Co v. Dy. CIT (2014) 49 Taxmann.com 98 (Karn)(HC) on similar issue had taken a different view. High Court held that the Tribunal was bound by decision of jurisdictional High Court. (AY.2006-07)
PCIT v .Jitendra J. Mehta (2019) 104 taxman.com 448 / 263 Taxman 6 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Jitendra J. Mehta. (2019) 263 Taxman 5 (SC)
S. 32 : Depreciation-Additional depreciation-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Tribunal allowed assessee’s claim for additional depreciation by following order of jurisdictional High Court – Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 263]