9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) in confirming the action of AO in regard to disallowance of balance 50% additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(ii)(a) of the Act in respect of new plant and machinery purchased and put to use for less than 180 days in the immediately preceding year. The relevant ground no.1 reads as under: "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to allow balance 50% of initial depreciation to the extent of Rs. 2828430 u/s. 32(1)(ii) on Plant & Machinery put to use for a period of less than 180 days during the financial year 2005-06 relevant to Assessment Year 2006-07." 3. Brief facts are that during financial year 2005-06 relevant to AY 2006-07, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . DCIT, ITA No. 683/K/2011 & DCIT Vs. Birla Corporation Limited, ITA No. 581/K/2011 for AY 2007-08 dated 08.12.2014, wherein the Tribunal has held as under: "15. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The facts are admitted and there is no dispute on the facts. Only issue for adjudication is whether the assessee is entitled for the balance 50% additional depreciation in view of sec. 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the next assessment year for remaining unutilized additional depreciation. We have gone through the relevant provisions of second proviso to section 32(1)(ii) and 32(1)(iia) of the Act. In the present case before us, the assessee has purchased and installed new plant and machinery for its m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ull agreement with the argument of Shri J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate that a bare reading of section 32(1)(iia) clearly shows that the assessee is eligible for additional depreciation in case the new machinery and plant was acquired and installed after 31-03-2005. There is no restrictive condition in the clause for the eligibility of the assessee to claim additional depreciation. When the assessee is eligible for depreciation @ 20%, in the absence of any specific provision, the AO cannot cut down the scope of deduction by referring to second proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. He also pointed out that even if there is any contradiction between sections 32(1)(iia) and second proviso to section 32(1)(ii), it has to be reconciled so as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and submission made by the appellant company in the matter." 6. Briefly stated facts are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has earned exempt income i.e. dividend income amounting to Rs. 7,56,642/-. The AO applied Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I. T. Rules, 1962 and estimated the disallowance i.e. average of the value of investment at 1½% at Rs. 14,16,710/- u/s. 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I. T. Rules, 1962. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who following the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT "C" Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.954/Kol/2010 dated 29.04.2011 restricted the disallowance to 1% of dividend income. Relevant portion of his order reads as under: " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
