9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy for use. Once the assessee has purchased the machinery and has put to use and thereafter has not used for lack of orders, the assessee cannot be denied the claim of depreciation. DR has also not brought to our notice any evidence to the contrary that the assessee had claimed depreciation @ 40% in the year of purchase 2013-14 relevant to the A.Y 2014-15 and the claim of depreciation subsequently cannot be disallowed. As relying on M/S. SPR PUBLICATIONS P. LTD. AND OTHERS VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE 3 (2) HYDERABAD AND OTHERS [ 2015 (7) TMI 117 - ITAT HYDERABAD] grounds appeal raised by the assessee. - ITA No.1874/Hyd/2018 - - - Dated:- 11-6-2020 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Sri A. Srinivas For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company has not received any orders for supplying of pump motor packages. The assessee also submitted that the special equipment had not been used in subsequent years also i.e. A.Y 2016-17 and 2017-18 for which returns have already been filed. The assessee further contented that during financial year 2014-15, it has not received any orders for supplying of pump motor packages for which the special equipment is used for testing its fuel pumping efficiency and that though it was not used in financial year 2014-15, it was ready for use and therefore, it is eligible for claim of depreciation. 3. The AO, however, was not convinced with the assessee s claim of depreciation. He held that the assessee has purchased the special equipment throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g officer erred in understanding the meaning The Learned Assessing officer erred in not considering the case laws relied upon by the assessee. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend or to alter the above Grounds of Appeal . 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri A. Srinivas, while reiterating the submissions made before the authorities below submitted that the special equipment purchased was put to use immediately in the financial year 2013-14 relevant to A.Y 2014-15, and therefore, the assessee has claimed depreciation @40% which was also allowed by the AO. He submitted that the year before us is the second year and since the assessee has not received any order from its clients for production of any equipment in which th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice any evidence to the contrary that the assessee had claimed depreciation @ 40% in the year of purchase 2013-14 relevant to the A.Y 2014-15 and the claim of depreciation subsequently cannot be disallowed. In the case of SPR Publications (Supra), the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Para 13 has held as under: 13. The expression used 'for the purpose of business' or 'put to use for the purpose of business' as employed in section 32(1) of the Act has come up for interpretation time and again before different High Courts in a number of decisions. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. India Tea and Timber Trading Co. (1996) 221 ITR 857 (Gau.) has held that the expression 'used' should have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l also include passive user of the asset. It has been held that if the machinery or plant is ready for use but it is not actually used, still then assessee will be eligible for depreciation. If we apply the aforecited principle to the facts of the present case, it is to be seen that the plant and machinery and electrical installation on which assessee has claimed full depreciation were acquired in the preceding assessment year. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the plant and machinery as well as electrical installation were ready for use in the impugned assessment year. Only because the inauguration took place in October, 2007 that cannot be a sole criteria to deny assessee's claim of depreciation at the full value when there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
