9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 580 - AT - Income TaxAdditional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) - activities undertaken by the assessee amount to Manufacture - Whether the term manufacture was introduced in the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2009 by way of insertion of section 2(29BA) and therefore, the claim of the assessee regarding its activity qualifying as manufacture ? - CIT- allowed the deduction - HELD THAT - We find that CIT(A) while deciding the issue has noted that the facts of the case under consideration were similar to A.Y. 2007-08. We further find that while deciding the identical issue in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 2012-13 2021 (3) TMI 935 - ITAT DELHI and following the decision of Tribunal in assessee s own case or A.Y. 2013-14 2020 (1) TMI 1371 - ITAT DELHI held the issue to be covered in assessee s favour. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the facts in the case in the year under consideration and that of earlier years are different and distinguishable and further no material has been placed by the Revenue to demonstrate that the decision rendered by the Tribunal in assessee s own case in earlier years has been stayed/ set aside/ overruled by higher judicial forum. In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Thus grounds of the Revenue are dismissed.
Issues:
1. Additional depreciation claimed by the assessee under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act. Analysis: The appeal filed by the Revenue was against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relating to Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee, a company engaged in retail gas distribution business, filed its return of income declaring a specific amount. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act. The main issue revolved around the claim of additional depreciation amounting to a specific sum by the assessee under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim of additional depreciation made by the assessee. The AO was of the view that the activities of the assessee did not amount to manufacturing or production of an article or thing, as required for eligibility for additional depreciation. The AO noted that the process undertaken by the company did not result in a new or distinct object with different characteristics. The AO held that the assessee was not eligible for additional depreciation and disallowed the claim. Aggrieved by the AO's order, the assessee approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee. The CIT(A) noted that in earlier years, the ITAT had confirmed the eligibility of the assessee for claiming additional depreciation as a manufacturer under the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) held that the facts of the current year were identical to those of the earlier years and allowed the claim of additional depreciation. Before the ITAT, the Revenue supported the AO's order, while the assessee reiterated its submissions and cited previous decisions in its favor. The ITAT observed that the facts of the case were similar to earlier years where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee. The ITAT found no material presented by the Revenue to show any distinction in facts between the current year and previous years. Therefore, the ITAT dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, upholding the order of the CIT(A) and allowing the claim of additional depreciation by the assessee. In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, affirming the decision of the CIT(A) to allow the claim of additional depreciation by the assessee.
|
