Arun Kumar Gupta vs. Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Arun Kumar Gupta, filed his return of income on 04.11.2016 declaring total income of Rs.20,75,314/-. His case was selected for scrutiny assessment, and a notice under section 143(2) was issued. On scrutiny of the accounts, it was revealed that the written down value of the assets, namely vehicles, was shown at Rs.5,084/- as on 31.03.2015, but on the first day of the next accounting year, the assessee showed the gross value of the block of assets at Rs.50,15,970/-. The Assessing Officer directed the assessee to explain how this change was reflected in the total value of the block of assets. The assessee did not provide any material, and the Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation on this addition in the written down value of the assets. The appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Tribunal should uphold the disallowance of depreciation made by the Assessing Officer?
• 2. Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's failure to present a case?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Jewelex India Private Limited v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

  Mumbai benchAY 2020-21Allowed

• Kovalam Resort Private Limited vs. DCIT

• Chiranjilal Tea Company Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• M/s Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT

  Kolkata bench

• M/s. S S Group (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)

  Delhi Bench ‘G’ benchAY 2015-16, 2016-17Partly Allowed

• Bhartiya Samruddhi Investments and Consulting Services Limited vs. ACIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi

  Delhi bench