9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n unanimously observed and held that the assessee can claim balance depreciation in the subsequent assessment year. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.685/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2019 - Shri R.S. Syal, VP And Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM For the Assessee : Shri Ketan Ved Shri Gopal Agarwal For the Revenue : Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, CIT ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the directions of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 05.12.2016 for the assessment year 2012-13 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. At the very outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that ground Nos.1 to 5 raised by the assessee relates to transfer pricing adjustment . That further, the Ld. AR submitted that after giving effect to the directions of the Ld. DRP, no TP adjustment is required so far as these grounds are concerned and therefore, they become academic in nature. 3. We have heard the submissions of the Ld. AR of the assessee and on the basis of these submissions; w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be applied and we remit the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue in lines of the order of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2011-12. Thus, ground No.6 raised in appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Ground No.7 raised by the assessee pertains to claim of deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act. 9. The Assessing Officer discussed this issue at Page 18, Para 6 onwards of his order and final findings are at Page 25, Para 6.3 onwards wherein the Assessing Officer disallowed proportionate weighted deduction claimed u/s.35(2AB) of the Act at ₹ 9.34 Crore by the assessee company and added back the same to the total income of the assessee company. The Assessing Officer while doing so has given detailed reasoning as appearing in his order which is on record. 10. The Ld. AR of the assessee at the very outset submitted that this issue is covered by the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in ITA No.556/PUN/2015 ITA No.574/PUN/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 and ITA No.834/PUN/2016 ITA No.821/PUN/2016 for the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Assessee is entitled to 50% of the additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act, 1961? The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court on this issue has held and observed as follows: 5. Having heard Counsel for the Revenue and for the Assessee, we notice that the Assessee's claim of additional depreciation arises out of clause (iia) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act. Clause (ii) of sub- section 1 of Section 32 of the Act recognizes the depreciation on block of assets. Clause (iia) grants additional depreciation in case of acquisition and installation of new machinery or plant by an Assessee after 31St March, 2005, the Assessee being engaged in business of manufacture or production of an article or thing. 6. We may also notice that the second proviso to clause (ii) of section 1 of sub-Section 32 of the Act, would restrict Assessee's claim of depreciation to 50% in case, the assets are acquired by the Assessee during the previous year and put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sertion of clause (iia) would be defeated because it provides for 20 per cent deduction which shall be allowed. It has been consistently held by this Court, as well as the apex court, that the beneficial legislation, as in the present case, should be given liberal interpretation so as to benefit the assessee. In this case, the intention of the legislation is absolutely clear, that the assessee shall be allowed certain additional benefit, which was restricted by the proviso to only half of the same being granted in one assessment year, if certain condition was not fulfilled. But, that, in our considered view, would not restrain the assessee from claiming the balance of the benefit in the subsequent assessment year. The Tribunal, in our view, has rightly held, that additional depreciation allowed under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act is a one- time benefit to encourage industrialization, and the provisions related to it have to be construed reasonably, liberally and purposively, to make the provision meaningful while granting the additional allowance. We are in full agreement with such observations made by the Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Statute the necessary clarificatory amendment. 10.3:- . . .. 11:- We may only indicate that during the course of the arguments our attention was drawn to the Memorandum explaining the provisions in Finance Bill 2015 whereby the aforementioned amendment was brought about. 11.1:- The relevant part of the memorandum is extracted hereafter:- To remove the discrimination in the matter of allowing additional depreciation on plant or machinery used for less than 180 days and used for 180 days or more it is proposed to provide that the balance 50 per cent of the additional depreciation on new plant or machinery acquired and used for less than 180 days which has not been allowed in the year of acquisition and installation of such plant or machinery shall be allowed in the immediately succeeding previous year. This amendment will take effect from 1st April 2016 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2016-17 and subsequent assessment years. 11.2:- A perusal of the extract of the memorandum relied upon would show that the legislature recognized the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
