9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. Aztec Auto (P) Ltd [ 2020 (9) TMI 541 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] as held that where plant and machinery was acquired by the assessee in the second half of the financial year 2007-2008 was put to use for less than 180 days in that year and, therefore, only 10% of the additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) could be allowed on same in that year, balance additional depreciation of 10% could be allowed on these assets in the relevant subsequent year 2009-10. - Decided against revenue. - ITAT/49/2020 IA NO: GA/2/2020 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2022 - THE HON BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv., .for appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv. Ms. Swapna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect from 01.04.2016 and thus, it was not there for assessment year 2010-2011 ? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing Counsel for appellant/revenue and Mr. S.M. Surana, learned Advocate duly assisted by Ms. Swapna Das, learned Advocate and Mr. Siddhartha Das, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent. It is not disputed before us that the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are covered by the decision in the case of Dy. CIT v. Brakes India Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 1069 (Mds.) of 2010, dated 6.1.2012]. The said decisions was followed in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. Aztec Auto (P) Ltd.; [2020] 119 taxmann.com 215(Madras). In the said decision it was held that where plant and machinery was acq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the decision in Rittal India Limited as well as M.M. Forgings and ultimately, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. In doing so, the Division Bench of this Court distinguished the decision in the case of M.M.Forgings Ltd. (supra) by observing that the said case was not concerned with the issue with regard to right to carry forward the balance additional depreciation and followed the decision in the case of CIT v. T.P. Textiles(P.) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 411/246 Taxman 324/394 ITR 483 (Mad.), which was decided in favour of the assessee and in which decision, the decision in the case of Rittal India (P.) Ltd. (supra), was also referred to. 12. In our considered view, the effect of the insertion of the proviso in the year 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
