9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6/Kolkata/2012 filed by the assessee both for the assessment year 2008-09 seeks to raise the questions set out in paragraph 8 of the stay application for adjudication. We admit question No. 1 for adjudication as we find the other questions raised are not substantial questions of law to be adjudicated in the appeal. By consent of the parties the question formulated is taken up for hearing in appeal. The question is as under : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal erred in law and was not justified in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee as well as on law in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,17,27,868 made by the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has claimed additional depreciation of Rs. 4,17,28,868 in addition to the normal depreciation of Rs. 1,96,36,450. As per page 7 of the annual report, the company had commissioned the captive power plant of 8.5 MW in January, 2008. Therefore, the additions in the depreciation schedule for the power plant in the tax audit report has been shown after September and the total additions aggregate to Rs. 49.85 crores. The rates of depreciation for the power plant claimed by the assessee are as per the rates pre scribed in Appendix IA of the Income-tax Rules read with rule 5(1A). Rule 5(1A) provides that the depreciation under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Income-tax Act on assets acquired on or after 1st April, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tgutia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant- Revenue, submitted the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer is correct. She drew our attention to the definition of block of assets as given in section 2(11) of the Act that indicates the assets in respect of which the same percentage of depreciation is prescribed. She relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in M. M. Forgings Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 673 (Mad) where the question raised by the assessee against the Appellate Tribunal holding it was not entitled to additional depreciation was not admitted for adjudication in appeal. We, however, find from that decision the same was regarding applicability of the second proviso under section 32(1) of the said Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issue is on a right footing and does not call for any interference, in so far as he has followed the judicial discipline in following the decisions of the hon'ble Madras High Court (refer to supra) and granted the relief to the assessee. In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in doing so . . ." We have considered the judgments of the Madras High Court as well as that of the Gujarat High Court. We find clause (iia) of section 32(1) provides for further depreciation on any new machinery or plant which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2005, by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
