9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year. The provisions of section 32 of the Act do not provide for carry forward of the residual additional depreciation, if any. In the circumstances, the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue is on a right footing and does not call for any interference. When an allowance which is ordinarily not available under normal commercial principles of accounting, is made specifically allowable, through enactment of certain specific provisions of the Act, it is also a requirement that there should be similar specific provision which shows its applicability every year, unless the context strongly calls for such an interpretation. We are thus of the opinion that CIT(Appeals) was justified in confirming the disallowance of additional depreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry or plant acquired and installed in a year and claimed depreciation and additional depreciation for the year of installation, the assessee is not eligible for additional depreciation in the subsequent year since the plant and machinery lost its character of new plant and machinery. The assessee is eligible for additional depreciation only to the new plant and machinery acquired and installed during the previous year. The additional depreciation is only eligible to the new plant and machinery acquired and installed during a given year and cannot be extended to subsequent years as such plant and machinery will not qualify for additional depreciation since it was no longer new machinery in the subsequent years. The additional depreciation is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the current year also disallowance of claim of additional depreciation is made. 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), by following his own decisions for the earlier assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 in assessee s own case, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee. 4. We have heard both sides, perused the materials on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The ld. CIT(A), by following his own decisions for the earlier assessment years, has observed as under: 9. I have gone through the submissions made by the appellant and also the order of the Assessing Officer. For the Asst. Year 2008-09 the same issue was dealt elaborate by me in my appellate order in ITA No. 213/10-11 dated 08.03.2012 and decided in favo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2005, by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture and production of any article or thing, a further sum equal to twenty per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii): Provided that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of (A) any machinery or plant which, before its installation by the assessee, was used either within or outside India by any other person; or ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier year. There cannot be any presumption that unless a claim is specifically denied, it has to be allowed. In the case of Brakes India Ltd. (supra) where assessee claimed carry forward of additional depreciation, this Tribunal had held as under at para 15 of its order:- 15. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the provisions of section 32 as applicable for the relevant assessment year clearly shows that additional depreciation is allowable on the plant and machinery only for the year in which the capacity expansion has taken place which has resulted in the substantial increase in the installed capacity. In the assessee s case this took place in the assessment year 2005-06 and the assessee has also claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
