2011 (2) TMI 640 - AT - Income Tax

Additional depreciation - It was submitted by the assessee that the assessee has purchased hot air stenter machine which has increased its installed capacity by 10% therefore entitled for higher depreciation. - Held that - The Directors of the assessee Company are responsible for the affairs of the assessee Company and once they have admitted that the installed capacity of the current and previous year is not ascertainable would show that installed capacity has not been enhanced. - addition made by the AO after disallowing additional depreciation confirmed - decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the appellant.
2. Disallowance of interest expenses.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Additional Depreciation
The appellant claimed additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act for purchasing new plant and machinery. The AO disallowed Rs.18,42,527 out of the claimed depreciation, stating that the purchase did not increase the installed capacity as required by law. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, emphasizing the conditions for claiming depreciation, including ownership, usage for business, and use during the relevant accounting year. The CIT(A) noted that the appellant failed to prove an increase in installed capacity, as the Directors' Report stated the capacity was not ascertainable. The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the appellant did not provide evidence of increased capacity, leading to a denial of the additional depreciation claim.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Interest Expenses
The AO disallowed Rs.7,62,565 of interest expenses based on findings from previous assessment years. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, citing similar facts from prior years. The appellant referred to a decision by the ITAT Ahmedabad in earlier years where a similar addition was deleted. The ITAT considered the previous decision and concluded that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition, as there was no evidence of a nexus between borrowed funds and investments in shares. Following the earlier decision, the ITAT deleted the addition of interest expenses, as the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the previous tribunal order.

In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance of interest expenses while confirming the disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the appellant.