9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its ambit the subsequent amendment. If the unamended law could be held in a manner consistent with what the amendment seeks to achieve, the same is clearly clarificatory and, thus, retrospective, else not. This in fact represents settled law in the matter; the amended provision thereby clearly indicating of it being explanatory or declaratory of what the law always was. The sole premise of interpretation is to decipher the legislative intent consistent with it s object [Catholic Syrian Bank v. CIT [ 2012 (2) TMI 262 - SUPREME COURT] , CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [ 2007 (3) TMI 206 - SUPREME COURT] and Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. [ 1983 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] The legislative intent per s. 32(1)(iia) is to provide additional depreciation (of 20%) qua the eligible plant and machinery, with a view to provide a fillip to the industry, where put to use for the purpose. The condition of acquire and put to use, stated in s. 32(1)(iia), is basic to a claim of depreciation and, therefore, is to be read in that context. The law, however, restricting depreciation to 50% of that eligible where the asset under reference is put to use for less than 180 days during the relevant year, puts an artific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following cases, the Revenue relies on the decision in Pr. CIT vs. Era Infrastructure(India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Del) (copy on record), rendered relying on the decision in Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. v. CIT [2005] 279 ITR 310 (SC): i. CIT vs. Aztec Auto Pvt. Ltd. TCA No., 267 of 2020 (Mad) Mentions that SLP in the case of Brakes India was dismissed by the Hon. Supreme Court. ii. Brakes India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT, ITA 1464 of 2019, (Mad) iii. CIT Anr. vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. [2016] 380 ITR 423 (Bom) iv. Pr. CIT vs. Godrej Industries Ltd. ITA No. 511 of 2016 (Bom) v. CIT vs. Shri TP Textiles Pvt. Ltd. TCA No. 157 of 2017 (Mad) 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 To begin with, in terms of the law of precedence, the decision by only the Hon'ble Apex Court or the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Tribunal (Suresh Desai Ass. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Del); CIT v. Thana Electricity Supply Co. Ltd . [1994] 206 ITR 727 (Bom)(FB)). In case of conflict of opinion between the decisions by the non-jurisdictional High Court, it is the view that appeals to the judicial mind and conscience of the Tribunal that would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, and the deduction under this sub-section in respect of such asset is restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (iia) for that previous year, then, the deduction for the balance fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for such asset under clause (iia) shall be allowed under this sub-section in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of such asset: (emphasis, supplied) 3.3 The decisions relied upon by either side stand perused. In Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble High Court was of the view that the provision being a one-time benefit with a view to encourage industrialisation, it is to be construed reasonably, liberally and purposefully. Reading it in a manner to allow the balance 50% depreciation in the following year would thus be in order. This was followed in Brakes India Ltd. (supra), which in turn was followed in Aztec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt should be given a retrospective effect, despite the legislative declaration specifying a prospective date as the date from which the amendment is to come into force, it was explained therein, is as to whether without the aid of the subsequent amendment the unamended provision is capable of being so construed as to take within its ambit the subsequent amendment. If the unamended law could be held in a manner consistent with what the amendment seeks to achieve, the same is clearly clarificatory and, thus, retrospective, else not. This in fact represents settled law in the matter; the amended provision thereby clearly indicating of it being explanatory or declaratory of what the law always was. The sole premise of interpretation is to decipher the legislative intent consistent with it s object [Catholic Syrian Bank v. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC)(also see: CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC); CIT v. Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 225 (SC)). The legislative intent per s. 32(1)(iia) is to provide additional depreciation (of 20%) qua the eligible plant and machinery, with a view to provide a fillip to the industry, where put to use for the purpose. The condition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
