9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irmed. UPS depreciation under "Plant & Machinery OR Computer" - Held That:- Surface Finishing and Equipment (2003 - TMI - 68566 - ITAT JODHPUR), classified as Computer, eligible for higher rate of depreciation. - I.T.A. Nos. 249 & 1166/Mds/2010, I.T.A. No. 1069/Mds/2010 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2012 - Shri Abraham P. George, Shri George Mathan, JJ. Department by : Shri K.E.B. Rengarajan, Jr. Standing Counsel Respondent by : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA No. 249/Mds/2010 is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT(Appeals), Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai in ITA No. 30/08-09/LTU(A) dated 30-11-2009. ITA No. 1166/Mds/2010 is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT(Appeals), Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai in ITA No. 27/09-10/LTU(A) dated 19- 04-2010 for the assessment year 2006-07. ITA No. 1069/Mds/2010 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(Appeals), Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai in ITA No. 27/09-10 dated 19-04-2010 for the assessment year 2006- 07. All the three appeals relate to the same assessee and involve identical i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned CIT(A) had deleted the same by following his predecessor s order for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. However, it was fairly conceded by both the sides that the issue had been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer by the Tribunal for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 in ITA Nos. 1635/Mds/2007, 2510/Mds/2007 and 1565/Mds/2008 dated 10-06-2011. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that they had no objection if the issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. Consequently, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05, this issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with similar directions as given in the said earlier order of this Tribunal. It was also agreed that this issue was the ground No.1 in the Revenue s appeal in ITA No. 1166/Mds/2010 also. Consequently, the same finding applies to ground No.1 of the Revenue s appeal in ITA No. 1166/Mds/2010. 7. It was the further submission by the learned Jr. Standing Counsel that ground No.4 in ITA No. 249/Mds/2010 was against the action of the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he disallowance by holding that the assessee had only reimbursed the foreign customer in respect of the rework charges incurred by the customer outside India as also on the ground that none of the entities to whom payments have been made did not have a permanent establishment in India and consequently no tax was liable to be deducted. 11. In reply, the learned authorised representative submitted that the assessee had reimbursed the actual expenses on account of the repairs and rework charges on the goods exported outside India which were found to be defective. It was the submission that the nature of the work was only job work and there was no fee for technical service or royalty. It was the submission that as it was found that the reimbursement of expenses on the rework and repair charges of the defective brakes to the foreign customers would be cheaper than the procedure of requiring the customers to return the goods and re-export them after repair and rework which would involve higher expenditure on freight and insurance, it decided to let the foreign customers to do the repair and rework and cost of the same had been reduced from the payments received from them. It was the fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y had been put to use for more than 180 days, the assessee could claim only 50% additional depreciation. The balance of the 50% of the additional depreciation was claimed during the current assessment year being the assessment year 2006-07. It was the submission that the claim of the additional depreciation was in fact the residual additional depreciation relevant to the assessment year 2005-06. It was the submission that the residual additional depreciation may be directed to be allowed. 14. In reply, the learned Jr. Standing Counsel submitted that it is provided in section 32(1)(iia) of the Act that as on 01-04-2005 additional depreciation was to be allowed only in the year in which there were substantial increase in the installed capacity. Thus it was clear that additional depreciation on the new plant and machinery could be granted only in the year in which the capacity expansion has been achieved and there was no provision for carry forward and allowance of the residual additional depreciation, if any. He vehemently supported the order of the learned CIT(A). 15. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the provisions of section 32 as applicable for the releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
