9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 951 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of depreciation on Generator and Sortex Machine installed during the year - passive use OR active use - Held that - The assessee is entitled to get benefit of depreciation on such plant and machinery, which were not put to use actively. Apart from above, it is also worth consideration that sortex machine and generator, being plant and machinery, also form the part of block of assets and therefore, it is not justified to allow part of depreciation from the said block of assets and to make part disallowance thereof. A perusal of the impugned order further shows that the assessee also made a submission before the ld. CIT(A) that Sortex Machine was put to use on 12.03.2010 and 5.77 quintal of rice was processed through this machine on trial basis. However, the ld. CIT(A) appears to have given no finding on this submission of assessee. CIT(A) was not justified in disallowing the depreciation on generator and sortex machine, as claimed by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on Generator and Sortex Machine. 2. Interpretation of "use" for the purpose of claiming depreciation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Generator and Sortex Machine: The assessee appealed against the disallowance of ?5,65,440/- depreciation on a generator and sortex machine for the assessment year 2010-11. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, concluding that the generator and sortex machine were not put to use during the year. The assessee contended that the assets were installed and ready for use, and even if not actively used, they should be eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents which established that depreciation can be claimed if the asset is ready for use, even if not actively used. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the submission that the sortex machine was put to use on 12.03.2010 for trial processing of rice. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in disallowing the depreciation and allowed the assessee's appeal. 2. Interpretation of "Use" for the Purpose of Claiming Depreciation: The Tribunal examined the interpretation of the term "use" in the context of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, which deals with depreciation. The Tribunal referred to several judicial decisions, including: - CIT v. Geo Tech Construction Corporation: The term "used" includes both active and passive use, meaning the asset can be considered used if it is kept ready for use. - CIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd.: Depreciation is allowable even if the machinery is kept ready for use but not actually used. - CIT v. Nahar Exports Ltd.: The assessee is entitled to depreciation if the machinery is kept ready for use, as everything ages with time. - Capital Bus Service (P) Ltd. v. CIT: The term "used" includes keeping the machinery ready for operation, even if not actively employed. - CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.: Passive user of an asset, meaning the asset is kept ready for use, qualifies for depreciation. - CIT v. Insilco Ltd.: Emergency spares kept ready for use can be considered as used for the purpose of claiming depreciation. - CIT v. Radio Today Broadcasting Ltd.: Assets kept ready for use qualify for depreciation. - CIT v. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corpn. Ltd.: Machinery kept ready for use, even if not actively used due to external circumstances, qualifies for depreciation. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the generator and sortex machine as they were kept ready for use, aligning with the judicial precedents that support a broader interpretation of "use" to include passive readiness for use. The appeal was allowed, granting the depreciation claim to the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the CIT(A) was not justified in disallowing the depreciation on the generator and sortex machine. The decision was based on the interpretation that assets kept ready for use qualify for depreciation, even if not actively used, supported by various judicial precedents. The appeal was pronounced in open court on 30.03.2017.
|
