9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 690 - AT - Income TaxAdditional depreciation claimed by the assessee company @ 10% in respect on new plant machinery acquired by it after September 30, 2012 (AY 2013-14) - Number of days asset is used - quantum of additional depreciation allowable in respect of these assets was restricted to 50 percent of 20 percent of the actual cost of machinery in assessment year 2013-14 in view of the restrictive provision provided under the Act (i.e. as per the second proviso to section 32(1) - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that this issue is already considered by the Hon ble Madras High Court in case of Brakes India Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (4) TMI 511 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and M/s Aztec Auto Pvt. Ltd. . 2020 (9) TMI 541 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and further the additional depreciation claimed was already imbibed in Section 32(1) (iia) of the Act. Thus, the additional depreciation is allowable depreciation and the amendment is not applicable in present assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 in assessee s case. Further, no distinguishing facts were presented before us by the Ld. DR. Therefore, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are allowed.
Issues:
1. Additional depreciation claimed by the assessee. 2. Addition on account of interest income adjustment. 3. Addition on account of undisclosed income/TDS. Additional Depreciation Claimed by the Assessee: The appellant filed an appeal against the order passed by CIT(A)-2, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2014-15, challenging the disallowance of additional depreciation claimed at 10% in respect of new plant and machinery acquired after September 30, 2012. The appellant contended that the quantum of additional depreciation allowable was restricted to 50% of 20% of the actual cost of machinery in the previous assessment year, and the balance was claimed in the current year. The appellant cited various judicial pronouncements to support their claim. The Hon'ble Madras High Court and Karnataka High Court had previously considered similar issues and held that the balance 50% of additional depreciation could be claimed in the succeeding assessment year. The tribunal agreed with this interpretation and allowed the appeal, stating that the additional depreciation is allowable, and the restriction did not apply in the present assessment year. Therefore, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 were allowed. Addition on Account of Interest Income Adjustment: The Assessing Officer made an addition towards interest income adjustment with MSEB, which was contested by the appellant. During the proceedings, the appellant did not press Ground No. 3 related to this addition. As a result, Ground No. 3 was dismissed, and the appeal was partly allowed. Addition on Account of Undisclosed Income/TDS: Another addition was made on account of undisclosed income/TDS, which was also challenged by the appellant. However, during the hearing, the appellant did not press Ground No. 4 related to this addition. Consequently, Ground No. 4 was dismissed, and the appeal was partly allowed. In conclusion, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A). The tribunal held that the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee was allowable, as per the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia), and the restriction on claiming the balance 50% of additional depreciation in the succeeding assessment year did not apply. The additions made on account of interest income adjustment and undisclosed income/TDS were not pressed by the appellant during the proceedings and were consequently dismissed. The tribunal pronounced the order on November 11, 2021, in the presence of both parties.
|
