9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - quantum of disallowance - HELD THAT:- As held in assessee s own case [ 2016 (4) TMI 916 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] we find that its not even in dispute that a part of expenses attributable to the work in connection with the investment are to be disallowed, as the assessee has on its own offered ₹ 30,000 for disallowance in this regard. The dispute is confined to the quantum of disallowance and the basis on which it is to be quantified. In the absence of any reasonable basis of disallowance offered by the assessee, and in the absence of the assessee even disclosing the basis on which disallowance is made, the Assessing Officer had invoked the rule 8D. We see no infirmity in this action. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we vacate the relief granted by the CIT(A) and restore the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. - Decided against assessee. Rejection of claim of additional depreciation u/s 32(l)(iia) - plant machinery were used for less than 182 days, the claim of additional depreciation during AY 2010-11 was restricted to 50% - HELD THAT:- We find that the CIT(A) has appreciated the facts and loan i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 10. We are alive to learned counsel s core contention that the issue about taxability of carbon credits is no longer res integra inasmuch as there are several decisions of this Tribunal, and one of which has been approved by Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, which have held that the carbon credit receipts are not taxable. However, for the reasons we will set out in a short while, we consider it appropriate to deal with the matter in a little detail and set out our understanding about certain basic aspects of this case, rather than disposing of appeal, without examining the facts of case, summarily as a covered matter. 11. A carbon credit is a financial instrument that represents a ton of CO2 (carbon dioxide) or CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent gases) removed or reduced from the atmosphere from an emission reduction project. It has been used interchangeably with the CERs (i.e. Certified Emission Reductions) and that is the approach we will have here as well. The relevance of carbon credit, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with is only acquiring the CERs from Indian entities. In effect, even if the emission for harmful gas is reduced in a developing country like India, as long as the project in which this reduction is achieved is approved by parties to the protocol and these emission reduction units are transferred by the Indian entity so reducing the emissions to the entities in the parties to the Kyoto protocol, such emission reductions can be taken into account in their committed reductions. The respective parties to the Kyoto protocol have in turn put the emission obligations on the business entities in their countries, and, to fulfil the emission obligations, these entities have obtained the emission reduction credits from entities in other parts of the world. There are entities which trade in and facilitate transfer of these credits from one entity to another. There are sponsorship arrangements, under the Clean Development Mechanism, will allow the CERs generated by Indian entities to transfer the CERs to the foreign entities. It is this peculiar feature of mechanism of fulfilling the commitments that lead to a unique business model in terms of the carbon credits. Of course, the carbon credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e met by reduction in emission on its own and also paying money to someone in the developing world to buy credit for what environmental friendly work has been done by that entity. All this is in no way reducing the emissions but merely redistributing the right to emit greenhouse gases. That is an act too unkind to the global concerns, and it ends up supporting the global warming rather than controlling it. There is no point in glorifying these transactions of carbon credits as an act of benevolence or by putting those buying and selling these carbon credits on a higher moral pedestal. As Prof Adam Smith said three centuries ago, It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest . Nothing exemplifies it better than the situation before us. 16. Undoubtedly, generation of carbon credit does certainly mean that the entity getting the carbon credits has achieved reduction in harmful gas emissions, and that is an environmental friendly achievement. It is a testimonial of the good work done by the entity. The carbon credits are not, however, for being showcased. Doing good for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tlement only due to world concern. The source of carbon credit is world concern and environment. Due to that the assessee gets a privilege in the nature of transfer of carbon credits. Thus, the amount received for carbon credits has no element of profit or gain and it cannot be subjected to tax in any manner under any head of income. It is not liable for tax for the assessment year under consideration in terms of sections 2(24), 28, 45 and 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Carbon credits are made available to the assessee on account of saving of energy consumption and not because of its business. Further, in our opinion, carbon credits cannot be considered as a bi-product. It is a credit given to the assessee under the Kyoto Protocol and because of international understanding. Thus, the assessees who have surplus carbon credits can sell them to other assessees to have capped emission commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. Transferable carbon credit is not a result or incidence of one's business and it is a credit for reducing emissions. The persons having carbon credits get benefit by selling the same to a person who needs carbon credits to overcome one's negative point carbon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons on this factual finding by the coordinate benches. As a matter of fact, the findings are given in only one decision, i.e. My Home Power (supra), and other decisions simply, and somewhat mechanically, follow the same. The factual findings in this case are not the same, as arrived by the coordinate bench in the case of My Home Power (supra), and we are, therefore, not inclined to be guided by this decision. However, for the reasons we will set out in a short while, it is not necessary to refer the matter to a special bench at this stage. Let us first set out our reasons of expressing this voice of dissent: i. As it was evident from the response to the questions posed by us during the course of hearing, the grant of CERs are inextricably linked to the actual functioning of the unit inasmuch as it was reduction of emission of harmful gases, as a result of the change in the manner in which unit functioned e.g. lesser or no use of fossil fuel, which entitles the assessee to the CER. Take, for example, a situation in which the unit is closed and does not function at all. Learned counsel fairly accepts that there cannot be any CERs in such a situation. In such a situa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also factored. It is an integral part of the business activity, and an important consideration about the choice of courses available in carrying on the business, which results in CERs. The generation of CERs is thus on account of business activity. We, therefore, find ourselves in disagreement with the views of the coordinate bench to the effect that Carbon credit is not an offshoot of business but an offshoot of environmental concerns. No asset is generated in the course of business but it is generated due to environmental concerns. iv. This gain is not in terms of money, but it is a gain nevertheless. It is clearly a benefit in the sense it entitles the assessee to transfer a right to produce more emission- which is a valuable entitlement, and it arises from carrying on of business. This factual finding is important in the context of Section 28(iv) which provides for taxability of the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, arising from business or exercise of profession as a business income. Accordingly, we are unable to subscribe to the finding of the coordinate bench that It is not liable for tax for the assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly responsible manner. It is an offshoot of business. vii. As we have noted earlier in our order, sale of carbon credit does not do any good to the protection of environment or address global concerns about environment. Ironically, while these credits are generated by conducting business in an environmentally responsible manner, sale of these credits only result in higher emission of harmful gases in the countries signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. In a way, therefore, it is compensation for giving someone right to generate more harmful emissions than he is permitted to otherwise emit. It is inappropriate to glorify this income as offshoot of environmental concerns . viii. The question of binding judicial precedents arises only in the context of what is actually decided and on the legal questions. The factual aspects which have not been considered or decided in the judicial precedents cannot be treated as covered by these precedents. It is our bounden duty to examine the factual aspects in sufficient detail so as to come to a definite conclusion. As a final fact finding authority, we cannot wish away, or decline to deal with, the hard facts starin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis that all carbon credits are to be given uniform treatment by treating them capital receipts which are not incidental to carrying on the business. This assumption cannot, in any case, hold good for carbon credits under the CDM since in these cases the unit generating these credits are set up for the predominant purpose of generating emission reductions through making modifications in the working mechanism. 24. As a co-ordinate bench of equal strength, and it is not open for us to disregard the views of the coordinate benches. While it is well settled in law that coordinate benches cannot disregard the view of another coordinate bench, it is, however, equally true that it is vital to the administration of justice that those exercising judicial power must have the necessary freedom to doubt the correctness of an earlier decision if and when subsequent proceedings bring to light what is perceived by them as an erroneous decision in the earlier case. In the case of Union of India Vs Paras Laminates Pvt Ltd [(1990) 186 ITR 722 (SC)], Hon ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, observed as follows: It is true that a Bench of two members must not lightly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome, as shown in the profit and loss account, should be brought to tax. Learned CIT(A) has not dealt with this aspect of the matter as the addition was deleted on merits. 27. In our considered view, however, that is not the correct approach. 28. The event triggering the taxation in respect of carbon credits is the sale of carbon credits. It is only when the carbon credits are transferred, and transferred for a valuable consideration, that an income accrues. The grant of carbon credits is not the event triggering the taxation of income. These carbon credits are of no practical use, in Indian perspective, unless these are transferred by the assessee. The principles of conservatism, which is one of the most fundamental principle in determining of commercial profits, does not permit an anticipated income being accounted for, even though all anticipated losses, as soon as these can be quantified on a reasonable basis, are invariably taken into account in this process. Till the point of time these carbon credits are actually sold, the income embedded in these carbon credits, even when any, does not crystallize and continues to remain, at best, an antic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CDM, are taxable will have limited and somewhat academic significance at this stage since the question of taxability will need to be finally adjudicated by us only in the year in which sale proceeds of the carbon credit are received by the assessee, we have not referred the matter for constitution of a special bench at this stage. That occasion will arise only in the year and in the case in which sale proceeds are received by the assessee. We are sure that as a final fact finding body, in an appropriate case, all these aspects of the nature and taxability of carbon credits, as have been briefly touched upon in this order, will be examined in a befitting manner by a special bench of this Tribunal in due course. In any case, the case before us, as we have noted above, is with respect to carbon credits under CDM mechanism, which has its own peculiarities and on which there are no judicial precedents as yet. The call on whether or not this is a case to be referred to special bench will have to be taken by the bench which is in seisin of the matter regarding taxability in the year of receipt. 32. For the detailed reasons set out above, and subject to observations as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hmahals, Gujarat, India. During the production of HCFC-22, waste gas called HFC-23 is generated. For each ton of HCFC-22 produced, approximately 2.9% of HFC- 23 is generated. HFC-23 is a greenhouse gas (GHG) which has Global Warming Potential of 11,700 of CO2 per ton of HFC-23. GFL's CDM project consists of incinerating HFC-23 instead of allowing it to be vented into the atmosphere, and thereby reducing GHG emissions CERs awarded = Tones of GHG reduced *GWP of GHG In the year 2005-2006, Gujrat Fluorochemicals Limited (GFL) has implemented a project for greenhouse gas emission reduction by thermal oxidation of the waste gas HFC-23 in India under Clean Development Mechanism of Kyoto Protocol. GFL has installed, and operates and maintains a HFC-23 collection and thermal oxidation system (TO Plant) to incinerate HFC-23. The thermal oxidation system enabled GFL to avoid HFC-23 emissions (GHG emissions), which, in the absence of the project activity, would have been vented into the atmosphere. Upon voluntary incineration of HFC-23, emission reduction is achieved and CERs are is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeal is regarding such claim. During the course of appellate proceedings for A.Y. 2010-11, the CIT(A) has called for the remand report from Assessing officer on the issue. A copy of the said remand report was provided to us and we were asked to make our submissions on the said remand report. We have made our detailed submission dated 02-01-2015 to the CIT(A). The copy of the said submission is enclosed for ready reference in which we have provided our replies to the AOs observations in the remand report and the entire issue is discussed in detail. We rely on the same. Therefore, in view of the above it is requested that at the time of assessment, carbon credit revenue of ₹ 441.69 crores credited in the profit and loss account, net of expenses, may please by excluded, being a capital receipt and not liable to tax on the basis of various ITAT orders and High Court decision in the case of My Home Power Limited. Enclosures: 1. Note on Carbon Credit. 2. Copy of the remand report dated 25.11.2014 for A.Y. 2010-11 3. Copy of the reply dated 02.01.2015 submitted to CIT(A) in response to ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is carrying on the business of generation of CERS through this CDM project and accordingly, the revenue on account of sale of such CER. is taxable as profits and gains of business being carried on by the appellant. 11.2 Without prejudice to the finding given above that revenue earned from sale of carbon credits is taxable as income from the business Hi the hands of the appellant, even if it is treated as a capital receipt then also it will be taxable in the hands of the appellant as income from capital gain on account of transfer of CERs. This is due to the fact that in the case of the appellant, the cost of acquisition of CERS has already been determined. Thus, even if the appellant's contentions are accepted, it is to be held that these CERS are capital assets in the hands of the appellant and are having determined cost. Under such situation, the receipt received on account of transfer of such capital assets will be taxable in the hands of the appellant as short term or long term capital gain. Since, in the case of the appellant, all such CERS have been transferred within three years of date of acquisition of fire same, hence the entire sale consideration n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on credits as capital in nature, despite the fact that the realization from carbon credits has been treated by the assessee itself as revenue income and offered to tax? 39. The question has been replied by the Hon ble High Court is as under: 6. The last surviving question pertains to the treatment that the assessee s income from trading of carbon credits should be given. The Tribunal held that receipts should in the nature of capital receipts and therefore would not invite tax. This issue has been examined by two High Courts. The Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Subhas Kabini Corporation Ltd., reported in (2016) 385 ITR 592 (Karn) and Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. My Home Power Limited reported in (2014) 365 ITR 82(A) have held that receipts of carbon credit are in the nature of revenue receipts. Following the decisions of said two High courts, this question is also not considered. It is to be noted here that the Hon ble Gujarat High Court has thereafter issued a corrigendum in the above order in OJMCA/1/2018 in Tax Appeal No.553 of 2017 wherein the applicant pointed out an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is proposed to insert a new section 115BBG to provide that where the total income of the assessee includes any income from transfer of carbon credit, such income shall be taxable at the concessional rate often per cent (plus applicable surcharge and cess) on the gross amount of such income. No expenditure or allowance in respect of such income shall be allowed under the Act. This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2018 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2018-19 and subsequent years. 41. Thus, taking into consideration resolution of litigation on this issue by the Legislature itself, which had made provision for taxation of such receipts at the rate of 10% from the assessment year 2018-19 as well as authoritative pronouncements of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, we are of the view that receipts received by the assessee on sale of carbon credit are to be treated as capital receipts and not liable to tax. The ld.DRP has assigned one more reasons for not entertaining claim of the assessee particularly in the assessment year 2012-13 is that such claim was not in the return of income, rather it was made during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the interest free funds was demonstrated, It was also explained that similar disallowances have been accepted in the past as well. The Assessing Officer accepted the assessee s explanation that no interest bearing funds are used in these investments, but proceeded with making a disallowance in respect of 0.5% of the average investments, which worked out to ₹ 68,45,112, under rule 8D r.w.s. 14A. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who reversed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as follows: 6.2 It was intimated by appellant during the course of assessment proceedings that investments were made in earlier years in shares of subsidy companies and other companies. None of these shares were liquidated in the past 3 years. In such a situation, AO is not justified to conclude that the directors of the appellant company were involved in investment decisions and part of their remuneration needs to be disallowed. Before invoking the provisions of Rule 8D, AO has to give a finding that claim made by the appellant in the return of income is not correct. In this case AO has not given any such finding. It is only presumption o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d substantial exempt income of ₹ 3.32 crores. Moreover, there has been significant activity in the investment portfolio where old investments are liquidated and new investments are made. Making, managing and disposing off the investments require decision making, its accounting, tracking of the changes etc. Moreover, as per the Annual report of the company the directors of the company are being paid salary, commission on profits and other perquisites aggregating to ₹ 750 lacs (aprox.). As the decisions with regard to investments made by the company are important decisions the same are taken by the directors of the company and a part of their remuneration is relatable to these investments and the income derived therefrom. 12.8 In view of the discussion held above it is clear certain administrative, salary and other general expenses have been incurred in relation to the investments that result in income that does not form part of total income. Moreover, the assessee has not made disallowance under section 14A on any rational, logical or actual basis, but, the same has been disallowed on adhoc basis. 39. We have noted that Section 14A(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quidation of old investments and investment in new areas. No facts have been brought on record by AO which indicate that there were lot of movements in the investment activity requiring involvement of senior management personnel . We find that its not even in dispute that a part of expenses attributable to the work in connection with the investment are to be disallowed, as the assessee has on its own offered ₹ 30,000 for disallowance in this regard. The dispute is confined to the quantum of disallowance and the basis on which it is to be quantified. In the absence of any reasonable basis of disallowance offered by the assessee, and in the absence of the assessee even disclosing the basis on which disallowance is made, the Assessing Officer had invoked the rule 8D. We see no infirmity in this action. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we vacate the relief granted by the CIT(A) and restore the disallowance of ₹ 68,45,142 made by the Assessing Officer. 40. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 4.3. The issue has thus been decided in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee by the Co-ordinate Bench. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 933 dated 17-3-2014. Detailed submissions were made before the AO during the course of assessment, however, the AO was not convinced with the submissions made by the Appellant and therefore did not entertain the claim of balance additional depreciation. The AO was of the view that additional depreciation can be allowed only in the year in which the assets are acquired and installed and not in the subsequent year. The AO has stated that the law does not contain any provision enabling the tax payer to claim the balance half entitlement in the subsequent years as there is no explicit provision entitling the assessee to claim the balance of the additional depreciation in subsequent year. The proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) has to be construed in a restrictive way and liberal interpretation of the same cannot be made. 7.2 Before me, the Appellant submitted that since no additional depreciation was claimed in the return of income, the AO could not have added the sum to the total income while passing the assessment order. In view of the same the very action of the AO in firstly making the addition without there being any claim in the return of income, and secondly, not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... additional depreciation has been held allowable in succeeding assessment year: Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Asstt CIT 45 taxmann.com 337 10. We have also carefully gone through the Second Proviso to section 32(l)(ii) of the Act, which reads as follows: Provided further that where an asset referred to clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purpose of business or ; profession for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, the deduction under this sub-section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (iii) or clause (iia) as the case may be. 11. A bare reading of this section 32(l)(iia) clearly says that in case a new machinery or plant was acquired and installed after 31-03-2005 by an assessee, who is engaged in the business of manufacture or produce of article or thing, the, a sum equal to 20% of the actual cost of the machinery and plant shall be allowed as a deductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incentive in the form of additional sum of depreciation shall not be available in the subsequent year. Section 32(2) provide for a carry forward set up of unabsorbed depreciation. This additional benefit in the form of additional allowance u/s. 32(l)(iia) is onetime benefit to encourage the industrialization and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Temp Ltd. (supra), the provisions related to it have to be construed reasonably liberally and purposive to make the provision meaningful while granting the additional allowance. This additional benefit is to give impetus to industrialization and the basic intention and purpose of these provisions can be reasonably and liberally held that the assessee deserves to get the benefit in full when there is no restriction in the statute to deny the benefit of balance of 50% when the new machinery and plant were acquired and used for less than 1 80 i days. Onetime benefit extended to assessee has been earned in the year of acquisition of ne machinery and plant. It has been calculated @ 15% but restricted to 50% only on account of usage of these plant and machinery in the year of acquisition. In section 32(1)(i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (l)(iia) of the Act. In the present case before us, the assessee has purchased and installed new plant and machinery for its manufacturing unit and put to use for a period of less than i.e. 180 days, during the FY 2005-06 relevant to AY 2006-07 and claimed 50% additional depreciation u/s. 32(l)(iia) of the Act in view of the second proviso to section 32(l)(ii) of the Act. Further, the balance 50% of additional depreciation on such plant and machinery has been claimed by the assessee company during the year under consideration i.e. the FY 2006-07 relevant to this assessment year 2007-08. A bare reading of clause (iia) of section 32(1) of the Act w.e.f. the AY 2006-07, provides for allowance of additional depreciation equal to 20% of actual cost of new plant and machinery acquired and installed after March, 31st 2005 by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. Such additional depreciation is to be allowed as deduction u/s. 32(l)(iia) of the Act but second proviso to section 32(l)(ii) restricts the allowance of depreciation at 50%, if the plant and machinery is acquired during the previous year is put to use for a period of less than 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the similar issue in case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Surat v. M/s. Aswani Industries, Surat in ITA No. 140/Ahd/2013 for AY 2008-09, has held in favour of the assessee as under: 4. The Second issue relates to additional depreciation of ₹ 4,98,859/- . Assessing officer has disallowed the balance additional depreciation claimed by assessee on the machinery installed in the second half of the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee's contention was that he was eligible for additional depreciation @ 20 % on the plant and machinery purchased in the second half of the financial year 2006-07 but being used less than 180 days, only 10 % depreciation was allowed by A.O. The balance 10 % additional depreciation was carried forward in the year under appeal and claimed in the computation of income which was disallowed by A.O. on the ground that carried forward of such additional depreciation is inadmissible as per provisions of section 32(l)(iia). The Ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by following the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of DCIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd (124 Taxman.com 189) wherein it has been held that the additional d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n India or outside India by any other person or such machinery and plant are installed in any office premises or any residential accommodation, including accommodation in the nature of a guest house or any office appliances or road transport vehicles, or any machinery or plant the whole of actual cost of which is allowable as deduction (where by way of depreciation or otherwise) in computing the total income under the head Profit and gains of business or profession of any one prevision year. Thus, the intension was not to deny the benefit to the assets who have acquired or instated new machinery or plant. The second proviso to section 32(l)(ii) restricts the allowances only to 50% where the assets have been acquired and part to use for a period less than 160 days in the year of acquisition. This restriction is only on the basis of period of use. There is no restriction, that balance of one time incentive in the form of additional sum of depreciation shall not be available in the subsequent year. Section 32(2) provides for a carry forward set up of unabsorbed depreciation. This additional benefit in the form of additional allowance u/s 32(l)(iia) is one time bene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allow additional benefit. The Karnataka High Court opined that the proviso would not restrain the assessee from claiming1 the balance of the benefit of additional depreciation in the subsequent assessment year. Similar view is held by the ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of M/s. Aswani Industries (supra). In view of the above, the claim made by the Appellant of ₹ 7,91,852 being balance additional depreciation for new assets acquired and installed in AY 2010-11 is allowed in the current assessment year. It is also noted that as per Explanation 5 to section 32(1) it is compulsory for the AO to allow depreciation whether claimed or not in the computation of total income. In view of the statutory provisions the AO was not correct in not allowing the additional depreciation claim made during the course of assessment. I therefore delete the addition made, and additionally, allow the claim of additional depreciation of ₹ 7,91,852/-. This ground of appeal is thus allowed. 8.1. We find that the CIT(A) has appreciated the facts and loan in perspective and has rightfully came to a conclusion that assessee was entitled to remaining part of 50% of the claim of the addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
