9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT DELHI] it is immaterial whether the plastic /rubber moulds were used in the factory premises of the assessee or vendors. Prime requirement is that moulds should be owned by the assessee, the same should be part of block assets shown by the assessee and these were put to use for the purpose of business of the assessee and the three requisite conditions have been fulfilled by the assessee in the present case and thus it is entitled to claim depreciation @ 30% which was rightly allowed by the ld. CIT(A). Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of excise duty not recovered from sales - According to Ld. AO the assessee has got benefit of CENVAT on one hand and has shown reduced income by excluding excise duty not recovered from sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 1,89,44,933/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by The Assessing Officer (in short Ld. 'AO') towards excess depreciation claimed on moulds. 3. The facts in brief are that Ld. AO, upon perusal of the tax audit report noted that the assessee company is in the business of manufacturing, selling and trading of electronic and electrical products, electronic medical equipment and development of embedded software and services. Ld. AO further, noted from the statement of the depreciation attached with the tax audit report that the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 30% on moulds instead of 15%. According to Ld. AO the depreciation @ 30% is only available on the moulds which are used exclusively in ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion before the Coordinate Bench in the case of Honda Motorcycle Scooter India (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT in ITA No. 3237/DEL/2011 for AY 2003-04 and others and the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 31.08.2016 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The facts of the case as decided by the Coordinate Bench are materially same as that of the assessee. In that case the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 30% on rubber and plastic goods. 5. In that case, the Revenue s contention was that since the assessee is a two-wheeler manufacturer, the depreciation @ 30% is not available to the assessee as the assessee is not a rubber/plastic manufacturer. Finally, the Coordinate Bench, having considered all these facts, has held as under: 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel along with the appellate order passed for asst. yr. 1991-92. The CIT(A)-XIV while deciding the issue for asst. yr. 1991-92 has discussed the matter at length and observed that in the present case, instead of having a separate division, the appellant is having plastic components manufactured using its own moulds and under its supervision at the factories of its vendors who are exclusive plastic goods factories, applying the same ratio that the moulds have in fact been used in plastic goods factories, the appellant would also be entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 50 per cent on such moulds, the view taken by the Karnataka High Court has also been followed in the decision of the Tribunal Delhi Bench, wherein, though the end pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and thus it is entitled to claim depreciation @ 30% which was rightly allowed by the ld. CIT(A). Hence ground No. 1 of the Revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed. 6. Since the facts of the case are materially same, we, therefore, respectfully following the decision mentioned above, set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct Ld. AO to allow the depreciation @ 30%. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 2418/KOL/2018. 7. The only issue raised by the Revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition as made by Ld. AO in respect of excise duty not recovered from sales to the tune of Rs. 9,30,00,000/- by ignoring the facts brought on record by Ld. AO. 8. The brief facts of the case are that L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00,000 are two different things which cannot be co-related. While one is an expense, the other is a credit or prepaid tax, which can be adjusted by offsetting the same with excise duty payable. The AO has lost sight of the subtle difference between the two. In light of the above, I find merit in the arguments of the Appellant that the Excise duty not recovered from sales amounting to Rs. 9,30,00,000 debited to the profit and loss account is a tax deductible item within the purview of Section 37 of the Act. I thereby allow this ground of appeal. In the result, Ground No. 3 is Allowed. 10. After hearing rival contentions and perusing the material on record including the findings of the first appellate authority, we note that L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
