Priya Soparkar 1 itxa 1841-17 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (IT) NO.1841 OF 2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Appellant V/s. V.Hotels Limited (Formerly Tulip Hospitality Services Limited) Respondent Mr.A.R.Malhotra with Mr.N.A.Kazi, Advocates for Appellant. Mr.Percy J. Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate with Mr.Atul K. Jasani, Advocates for Respondent. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 21, 2020 P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr.Malhotra, learned standing counsel, revenue and Mr.Pardiwalla, learned senior counsel alongwith Mr.Atul Jasani, learned counsel for respondent/assessee. 2. This appeal has been filed by revenue under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly Act hereinafter) against order dated 26 th August, 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench F , Mumbai (referred to as Tribunal hereinafter) in ITA No. 3191/Mum/2011 and ITA No.4215/Mum/2011, for assessment year 2007-2008. ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 03/10/2020 08:14:12 ::: Priya Soparkar 2 itxa 1841-17 3. ITA No.3191/Mum/2011 was filed by assessee whereas ITA No.4215/Mum/2011 was filed by revenue. 4. two appeals were heard by Tribunal alongwith number of appeals filed by same parties for assessment years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2008-2009. 5. As already noted above, present appeal relates to assessment year 2007-2008. 6. appeal has been preferred on following two questions stated to be substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal is justified in allowing depreciation of Rs.27,60,587.00 on Floor Space Index (FSI) @ 10% of total consideration, without appreciating that grant of additional FSI is not in nature of any kind of assets until and unless additional flooring/building is constructed, therefore, not eligible for depreciation in this case? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal is justified in allowing depreciation amounting to Rs.3,66,06,538.00 on intangible assets as claimed by assessee? 7. During hearing on February 12, 2020, there was consensus at Bar that in so far question No.2 is concerned, same has already been answered by this Court in case of assessee itself in Income Tax Appeal Nos.835 and 836 of 2016, decided on 17th December, 2018, only difference being that at that stage assessee was known as Tulip Hospitality Services Limited. It has been held that it ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 03/10/2020 08:14:12 ::: Priya Soparkar 3 itxa 1841-17 is not substantial question of law. Thereafter, learned counsel for parties were heard on question No.1. 8. In so far question No.1 is concerned, this issue has been decided by us in connected appeal i.e. Income Tax Appeal No.1734 of 2017 arising out of same common order of Tribunal for assessment year 2006-2007. It has been held that no substantial question of law arises on this issue from order of Tribunal. Following said order we dismiss present appeal of revenue by holding that no substantial question of law arises from order of Tribunal. 9. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 10. This order will be digitally signed by Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of digitally signed copy of this order. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) . ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 03/10/2020 08:14:12 ::: Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-3 v. V.Hotels Limited (Formerly Tulip Hospitality Services Limited)