9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anting additional depreciation on wind mill when such claim for allowance was not made by the assessee in the original return as well as revised return of income, but only in the revised computation filed before completion of assessment proceedings. 3. The brief facts of this case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of wire cloth both metallic and synthetic which are used in paper making factories. In addition to this, the assessee is also engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of chemicals. The assessee filed the original return of income on 24.09.2009 which was later revised on 15.01.2011. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed additional depreciation on w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eciation on wind mill even in the revised return filed by him, but only claimed the same by way of a revised computation filed during the course of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT [2006] 157 Taxman 1 (SC)/284 ITR 323 (SC). 6. In response to this, the ld. AR argued that the decision of the Goetze India Ltd. case is not applicable to the appellate authorities and hence the relief granted by the ld. CIT(A) by considering the revised computation of income is valid. He further argued that the allowance of additional depreciation on wind mill is covered in favour of the assessee by the following decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court : (a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad High Court in the case of Smt. Raja Rani Gulati vs CIT reported in (2012) 346 ITR 543 (All). 7.1. We also find that the veracity of the claim of additional depreciation on wind mill was never disputed by the ld. AO. It is also seen that there was a specific query raised by the ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings on the depreciation issue. The addition was made on the sole ground that no plausible explanation was offered by the assessee regarding the fact why it had not claimed the same in the revised return filed by him. We find that this issue on merits is now settled in favour of the assessee by the following decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court :- The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs VTM Limited [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t find any error in the conclusion of the Tribunal in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We, therefore, do not find any question of law much less substantial question of law to entertain this appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs." CIT vs Hi Tech Arai Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 477 (Mad) "The assesse,e engaged in the business of manufacture of oil seeds, moulded rubber par5ts etc., apart from generation of power, set up two wind mills in addition to the already existing four wind mills and claimed additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting additional depreciation under section 31(1)(iia) was confirmed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
