2010 (10) TMI 591

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the accounting year and not before the close of the accounting year ?   (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the subsidy received for generator set is not contribution made by the Government towards the cost of the generator and further whether the Tribunal was right in law in allowing depreciation on generator at 20 per cent.?"   The facts   3. The assessee was a registered firm carrying on a business of manufacturing and sale of glass wares. It filed return for the assessment year 1985-86 and claimed.   * Deduction of sales tax collected in the month of March 1985 but deposited in the month of April 1985 ;   * Depreciation on the cost of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e month of March, 1985 was paid by the assessee in the month of April 1985. This finding has been recorded by the Assessing Officer. Section 43B of the Act, as the initially enacted, did not allow such deductions but this was changed with insertion of a proviso that allowed such deduction. However, there was dispute whether the proviso was with retrospective effect or not.   11. The Supreme Court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 has held that the proviso to section 43B is retrospective and it came into operation from the date the section was operative.   12. In view of the above, the Tribunal as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not commit any illegality in deleting the addition made by the A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....   * The depreciation of 20 per cent. is on the higher side ;   * The depreciation should be given at the rate of 10 per cent.   17. The generator is not mentioned in Appendix 1 relating to table of rates and as such award of depreciation at 20 per cent. was incorrect and is on the higher side.   18. The Assessing Officer had given depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent. This was enhanced to 20 per cent. by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and confirmed by the Tribunal. We have held that depreciation of 20 per cent. is incorrect and is on the higher side but the grant of depreciation of 15 per cent. by the Assessing Officer was not challenged by the Department and it cannot be done in the reference.   .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X