2016 (11) TMI 1299 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) - asset put to use - Held that - The assessee could not claim 100% of the depreciation in the year of installation of plant and machinery because it was put to use for the purpose of business for a period of less than 180 days and claimed 50% of depreciation in the year of installation of plant and machinery, the remaining 50% was claimed in the year under consideration. The intention of the legislation is absolutely clear that the assessee shall be allowed certain additional benefit, which was restricted by the proviso to half being granted in one assessment year, if certain condition was not fulfilled, but that would not restrain the assessee from claiming balance of the benefit in the subsequent assessment year. In the present case the assessee claimed 50% of depreciation allowable @ 20% under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act and the remaining 50% was claimed in the year under consideration. Therefore, by following the ratio laid down in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., (2016 (1) TMI 81 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ) the impugned order is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of the assessee.

Issues:
- Disallowance of additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
- Interpretation of legislative provisions regarding additional depreciation.
- Application of judicial precedents and tribunal decisions in similar cases.
- Effect of the Finance Act, 2015 amendment on the allowance of depreciation.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case pertains to the disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had claimed additional depreciation for machinery purchased during the assessment year 2011-12, with 50% claimed in that year due to less than 180 days of usage. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, leading to an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

2. The legislative provisions under Section 32(1)(iia) provide for additional depreciation on new plant and machinery. The contention was whether the balance 50% of additional depreciation not claimed in the year of acquisition and installation should be allowed in the succeeding year. The assessee argued that the legislation aimed to encourage industrialization by providing additional benefits, and there was no statutory restriction on claiming the balance depreciation in the subsequent year.

3. The judicial precedents and tribunal decisions played a crucial role in the analysis of the case. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and ITAT decisions to support their claim for the allowance of the balance 50% of additional depreciation. These decisions emphasized a liberal and purposive interpretation of the provisions to benefit the assessee and encourage industrial growth.

4. The impact of the Finance Act, 2015 amendment was also a significant aspect of the case. The proviso to Section 32(1)(iia) inserted by the amendment clarified the allowance of balance depreciation in the succeeding year for machinery used for less than 180 days. The Tribunal, following the legislative intent and judicial precedents, allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to permit the claim for the balance depreciation.

5. In conclusion, the ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the legislative intent to provide additional benefits for industrialization. The decision highlighted the importance of interpreting the provisions liberally and reasonably to fulfill the purpose of encouraging investment in plant and machinery. The judgment was delivered on 12th September 2016, setting aside the order of the authorities below and directing the allowance of the claim for additional depreciation.

← Previous Next →