Court held that the Tribunal had agreed that no income need be earned by use of the asset to claim depreciation. However the Tribunal had remitted the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to inquire into the question whether the assets were put to use in the relevant year before adding them to the block of assets. This was a relevant factor to be established by the assessee. The order remanded was justified. (AY. 2011-12, 2012-13)
Rato Dratsang v. ITO(E) (2021) 435 ITR 372 (Karn.)(HC)
S. 32 : Depreciation-Use of asset for purposes of business-Income need not be earned-Depreciation is allowable-Block of asset-Remand to CIT(A) is held to be justified. [S. 2(11), 254(1)]