Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1232 - HC - Income TaxDisallowance u/s. 43B - Electricity Duty deposited into designated bank Account as per direction of this Court - HELD THAT:- On the issue of electricity duty, there is merit in the contention of Mr. A.U. Senapati that the facts of the present case are different from the case of Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd. [2022 (3) TMI 390 - ORISSA HIGH COURT]. In that case the differential electricity duty paid in the loan lien account remained there and therefore, was inaccessible to the Government. In the present case, however, under the interim orders passed by this Court as much as nearly Rs.100 crores has been released to the State Government. In other words, the amount has not only been parted with by the Assessee but also has been received by the Government. Consequently, the deduction under Section 43B of the Act as claimed by the Assessee cannot be denied to it. It requires to be mentioned here that against the order passed by this Court in [2010 (5) TMI 952 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] and the State Government filed an SLP before the Supreme Court of India [2015 (3) TMI 1414 - SC ORDER] an order was passed by the Supreme Court on 23rd March, 2015 recoding a settlement between the parties, pursuant to which full payments have in fact been made by NALCO to the State Government. In that view of the matter, question No.(i) is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Department by holding that the AO, the CIT(A) and the ITAT were not justified in sustaining the addition/disallowance under Section 43B of the Act in respect of electricity duty deposited in the SBI Bank account under the direction of this Court. On this issue, the matter is remanded to the AO for a fresh computation keeping in view the amounts already released by the Petitioner to the State Government. Additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) - components/parts of a plan which were acquired prior to 31st March, 2005 but all such components/parts fitted into the plant after 31.03.2005 and installed after 31.03.2005 - HELD THAT:- The decision in PCIT v. IDMC Ltd. [2017 (2) TMI 644 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] of the Gujarat High Court squarely applies to this issue. There it was held that machines that might have been acquired before 31st March, 2005 but installed after 31st March, 2005 would be eligible for grant of additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act for the AY 2006-07. That decision of Gujarat High Court has been upheld by the Supreme Court by dismissal [2017 (10) TMI 732 - SC ORDER] Accordingly, in the present case question No.(ii) is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Department by holding that the component/parts of a plant acquired prior to 31st March, 2005 but fitted to the plant thereafter would be eligible for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia).
|