Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 856 - ITAT DELHIDisallowance of additional depreciation - items of the assets installed at retail outlets(sweet shops) - use of machinery in the actual process of manufacture of food products/sweets/namkeens - whether additional depreciation is allowable at the rate of 20% of the actual cost of such plant and machinery - HELD THAT:- Additional depreciation cannot be denied to the assessee for installing the items of the assets at retail outlets, because retail outlets are not either office promises or residential accommodation in the nature of the guesthouse as per the proviso to section 32(1)(iia) excluding the additional depreciation. In the year under consideration, also the items of fixed assets have been installed at various retail outlets and there is no dispute between the assessee and the Revenue on this factual aspect. Thus following the finding of the Tribunal in own case [2018 (5) TMI 626 - ITAT DELHI] , the additional depreciation in the year under consideration also cannot be disallowed on the ground that those items were not installed at the factory premises of the assessee. There is no doubt that “TOP sealer” are used for sealing containers for supply of food to the customers, which is part of the process of manufacturing and delivery of the products of the assessee and thus additional depreciation on the same is allowable. The Canopy of Generator is part of the entire plant and machinery engaged for manufacturing. Similarly, there is no doubt that the items Mixi, Lassi machine, Grinder Machine, Charcoal Griller, Table top burner, Gas Plant SS Double Body Tandoor, SS “Kadahi” Table, SS Selves Barcket Big and small are the items of assets engaged in manufacturing of food products/sweets/namkins etc. The trollys are also used for transferring of raw materials or finished products in the process of manufacturing of food products carried out by the assessee at the retail outlets. We do not find the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation as justified and accordingly, we reject the contention of the CIT(A) in upholding the disallowance. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|