9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration in the case of CIT(A) Vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (1) TMI 81 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein held that this provision is a beneficial legislation and should be given liberal interpretation. Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the decision of this Tribunal in allowing the additional depreciation being onetime benefit to encourage the industrialization in the subsequent year. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.728/Bang/2016 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2017 - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee by : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate For The Revenue by : Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM This appeal by the assessee is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al provision intended to spur investment in new machinery, on par with the depreciation under the regular provisions of the Act,. 7. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in law and on facts in stating that the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) has to be read strictly with section 32(1)(ii) in respect of depreciation allowable, when the statute itself has quantified the total benefit allowable to the appellant in clear terms at 20% of the value of the machinery installed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234B, 234C and section 234D of the Act in view of the fact the there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT(A) has not accepted the claim of the assessee and confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., 380 ITR 423 wherein the Hon ble High Court, in the identical facts and circumstances, has held that this provision is a beneficial legislation and should be given liberal interpretation. Accordingly, the Hon ble High Court has upheld the decision of this Tribunal in allowing the additional depreciation being onetime benefit to encourage the industrialization in the subsequent year. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that there is no provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year 2001-2002 alone would be significant. 8. The cardinal principles of interpretation of taxing statutes centers around the opinion of Rowlatt, J. in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioner [1921] 1 KB 64 which has virtually become the locus classicus. The above would dispense with the necessity of any further elaboration of the subject notwithstanding the numerous precedents available inasmuch as the evolution of all such principles are within the four corners of the following opinion of Rowlatt, J. . . . . . . . . . in a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6 for the assessment year 2012-13 are equally contradictory. The appellant Revenue would, however contend that, ex facie, from the language appearing in Section 10A it is crystal clear that the aforesaid provision of the Act, as amended by Finance Act, 2000 provides for deductions from the gross total income, notwithstanding the use of the words 'total income' in Section 10A. Exemptions provided for under the old Section 10A have been discontinued by the Legislature. According to the Revenue, where the purport and effect of the statute is clear from the language used there is no scope to turn to Chapter notes or the marginal notes so as to understand Section 10A to be an exemption section on the basis that the said provision is st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand, on behalf of the assessees, it is contended that though there may be some features of deduction brought in by the amendment to Section 10A, as for example, disallowance of profits in regard to domestic sales, the legislative intent in retaining Section 10A in Chapter III of the Act would clearly demonstrate the true nature of the said provision of the Act even after amendment thereof by the Finance Act of 2000. Deductions from the total income which is nowhere envisaged under the Act and the reference to the total income of the undertaking, referred to in several sub- sections of Section 10A, would indicate that the total income referred to in Section 2(45) has no application to the computation under Section 10A and the reference the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
