itxa-387-2013 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.387 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax 2 .. Appellant. V/s. M/s. H. V. Axles Ltd. Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for Appellant. Mr. Mandar Vaidya with Mr. Srihari Iyer, for Respondent. CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA, & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2015. P.C: This Appeal under Section 260 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges order dated 31 st August. 2012 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for Assessment Year 2007 08. 2 Although numerous questions have been formulated in memo of appeal, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for Revenue presses only following questions of law for our consideration, as same would cover Revenue's grievance with regard to impugned order: (a) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was correct in law in upholding order of CIT(A), directing AO to allow depreciation on assets acquired from Tata Motors Ltd in FY 2006 07 relevant to S.R.JOSHI 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 31/12/2018 15:06:49 ::: itxa-387-2013 AY 2007 08, at cost at which they have been acquired, ignoring that during relevant assessment year assessee continued to be 100% subsidiary of transferor company as transfer of shares of assessee company to Tata Sons Ltd. was made only in subsequent FY 2007 08 relevant to AY 2008 09 during which assessee ceased to be 100% subsidiary of Tata Motors Ltd.? (b) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was correct in law in upholding order of CIT(A) directing AO to allow depreciation on assets acquired from Tata Motors Ltd. at cost at which they have been acquired, ignoring that provisions of clause (iv) of Section 47 and Explanation 6 to sub section (1) of Section 43 were applicable to assessee during relevant assessment year and therefore WDV of assets in books of holding company is to be considered as actual cost in hands of assessee company and depreciation had been correctly allowed accordingly? 3 We find that impugned order dated 31 st August, 2012 dismissed Revenue's Appeal by following decision of this Court in case of CIT v/s. M/s. Essar Oil Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No.3160 of 2010) rendered on 7th July, 2011. Parties are agreed with that issues arising in present appeal stands concluded by order of this Court in M/s. Essar Oils Ltd. (supra). 4 As stated in memo of appeal, Revenue has filed present appeal in view of fact that decision of this Court in M/s. Essar Oils Ltd. (supra) is challenged before Apex Court. In view of above, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for Revenue states that admission of present appeal be kept pending with liberty to mention after Supreme Court finally disposes of Revenue's Appeal from order of this Court in M/s. Essar Oil Ltd. (supra). S.R.JOSHI 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 31/12/2018 15:06:49 ::: itxa-387-2013 5 We specifically asked Mr. Suresh Kumar, Counsel for Revenue whether order of this Court in M/s. Essar Oil Ltd. (supra) has been stayed. We were informed that in negative. Thus, so far as we are concerned, as of now issue stands concluded against Revenue by decision of this Court in M/s. Essar Oil Ltd.(supra). In these circumstances, we see no reason to keep this appeal pending till decision of Apex Court in M/s. Essar Oil Ltd. (supra). 6 Thus, Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. (G.S.KULKARNI,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) S.R.JOSHI 3 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 31/12/2018 15:06:49 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax-2 v. H. V. Axles Ltd