Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (2) TMI 347

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ow were justified in denying the claimed additional depreciation under the said provisions on that basis. Agreeing with the view of the Ld. CIT(A) that the court interprets a law and cannot legislate. The action of the authorities below in this regard is thus upheld. The ground is accordingly rejected. - IT APPEAL NO. 860 (DELHI) of 2012 - - - Dated:- 21-12-2012 - I.C. SUDHIR AND B.C. MEENA, JJ. K. Sampath for the Appellant. Satpal Singh for the Respondent. ORDER I.C. Sudhir, Judicial Member - The assessee has impunged first appellate order on the ground that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as made by the AO. 2. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the ownership of the eligible assets and its use for the purpose of business or profession of the assessee. In another words the assessee will be eligible to claim depreciation under sub section (1) of section 32 only on fulfillment of the above conditions. Once the assessee qualify then there is no question of disallowance of depreciation. In accordance with the second proviso of section 32(1), the claim of depreciation shall be restricted to 50% of the normal depreciation only in case where the assets are used for the purpose of business or profession for a period of less than 180 days during the year. In this proviso also both the words "acquired" and "put to use" are used but the depreciation will be allowed only in the year in which th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion and installation should be read together for the application of the provision laid down u/s 32(1) of the Act. 5. Considering the above submissions we find that the only dispute is regarding application of the words "acquired" and "installed" provided u/s 32(1) (iia) of the Act to decide the eligibility of the claimed depreciation. The view of the authorities below is that both the words i.e. acquired and installed should be read together, whereas the contention of the assessee remained that both the words are meant for different purpose and hence installation date is relevant and not the date of acquisition. The contention of the assessee remained that the plants were purchased on different dates but they were installed to set in noti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n while interpreting a provision, where possibility of more than one interpretations is there and one of them appears favourable to the assessee. In the present case when the requirement of fulfillment of the conditions of acquisition and installation to grant the benefit of the claimed additional depreciation is so obvious and apparent that there is no scope of different interpretation that acquisition and installation should not be read together and simultaneously. The purpose of the word "acquisition" and "installation" may be different but both are required to be fulfilled only after 31st March, 2005 to make the assessee eligible for the benefit of the claimed additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Of course an identical iss .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the immediately succeeding previous year, then, in respect of that previous year." 6. During the assessment year 2006-07 in question in the provisions laid down u/s 32(i)(iia) there was specific condition alongwith installation of new plant or machinery after 31st March, 2005 that the new plant or machinery must also be acquired after 31st March, 2005. We have also reproduced herein above the relevant provisions laid down u/s 32(i)(iia) of the Act in operation during the assessment year under consideration. Under these circumstances we hold that the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Surama Tubes (P) Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Ld. AR is not helpful to the assessee. During the year for claiming additional depre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates