9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said decision, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed by an order. Thus, the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Brakes India having been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are bound by the said decision and accordingly, following the same. For the above reasons, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the Revenue. - T.C.A.No.267 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 7-9-2020 - Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Mrs. Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan For the Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. Heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant / r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on 26.03.2014 on the ground that the asset which was purchased and put to use in the previous year for less than 180 days only 10% depreciation was claimed and assessee has claimed the additional depreciation for the assessment year 2009-2010 and therefore, there was reason to believe that excess depreciation in respect of additional depreciation of ₹ 4,33,414/- has escaped assessment warranting reopening. 6. The assessing officer was of the view that the assessee has claimed arrears of depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) amounting to ₹ 4,33,414/- in respect of the asset under the head 'Plant and Machinery' acquired in the 2nd half of the financial year 2007-2008, for which, additional depreciation at 10% was allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue taking note of decision of High Court of Karnataka in CIT V. Rittal India (P.) Limited reported in 380 ITR 423. 9. As rightly pointed out by Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal erred in holding that there was no Judgment in any other High Court, which is in favour of the Department. Without noting the fact that there were several decisions, one of which, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M.M.Forgings Vs. ACIT, Company Range-IV, Chennai reported in [2012] 349 ITR 673 [Madras]. Iy appears that the said decision was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, which choose to follow the decision of High Court of Karnataka. Though the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
