Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1694 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 32(1)(iia) - depreciation claimed by the assessee relates to assets acquired in the preceding assessment year, wherein the assets were used for less than 180 days and only 10% of depreciation was claimed in earlier year - AO has held that the assessee cannot claim the balance 10% of depreciation in the subsequent year as per provisions of section 32(1)(iia) - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the new asset acquired, installed and put it in use for less than 180 days, the assessee has claimed only 10% of the eligible additional depreciation in the relevant assessment year, which was allowed. Since the assessee was eligible to claim 20% additional depreciation on new asset acquired, the balance 10% of additional depreciation was claimed in the next year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. In similar facts and circumstances, in the case of CIT v. Rittal India Private Limited [2016 (1) TMI 81 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein held intention of the legislation is absolutely clear, that the assessee shall be allowed certain additional benefit, which was restricted by the proviso to only half of the same being granted in one assessment year, if certain condition was not fulfilled. But, that, in our considered view, would not restrain the assessee from claiming the balance of the benefit in the subsequent assessment year. The Tribunal has rightly held, that additional depreciation allowed under Section 32(i)(iia) of the Act is a one time benefit to encourage industrialization, and the provisions related to it have to be construed reasonably, liberally and purposively, to make the provision meaningful while granting additional allowance. We are in full agreement with such observations made by the Tribunal. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition of employees contribution towards PF/ESI paid belatedly - no deduction u/s 36(1)(va) - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the assessee had remitted the employees contribution beyond the due date for payment, but within the due date for filing the return of income. As relying on M/S. INDUSTRIAL SECURITY & INTELLIGENCE INDIA PVT. LTD [2015 (7) TMI 1063 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] issue decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has stated that against fresh investments of ₹.13.36 crores, the assessee has net operating revenue of ₹.20.87 crores during the year and further sum of ₹.68.47 crores in the general reserve. When the assessee got its own sufficient funds for investment, the Assessing Officer cannot apply Rule 8D(2)(ii) and make the disallowance. Thus, we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance on account of attribution of interest. - Decided against revenue.
|