9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epreciation of 15% under Section 32(1)(iia). - 256 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2009 - A. K. SIKRI and VALMIKI J. MEHTA JJ. Mr. Rajesh Mahna, Advocate with Mr. Ramanand Roy, Advocate and Mr. Navneet Dhillon, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate, for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. - The issue which arises for determination in the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is whether the appellant-assessee is entitled to additional depreciation of 15% (in addition to the depreciation of 25% permissible under Section 32(1) of the Act). In order to get the benefit of additional depreciation, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rical assembly, kit sequencer etc. which were imported were new assemblies and fabricated to make in to New Plant Machinery along with other machinery and components purchased in India to constitute "New Plant Machinery" and since there were no evidence or identification of any earlier user whether the same plant or machinery was used by other person, simply because part of the machinery sent by the fabricator from outside the country shown as old cannot be interpreted to take away the benefit of additional depreciation". 3. In view of the abovesaid position, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has accordingly held as under: "4.3.4 The next claim of the appellant that reconditioned machinery which had incorporated used and a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8)67 ITR 199. In view of above fact and respectfully following the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment as discussed above, I am of view that during the year under consideration appellant had used second hand imported and reconditioned machinery and both class of machinery could not be held as new plant machinery. It is also held that these machineries were used outside India before installation by the appellant. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the claim of additional depreciation of Rs.9,74,392/- u/s 32(1) of the Act." 4. From the aforesaid finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which has also been accepted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it is clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
