9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion filed by the assessee in the revenue's appeal in ITA No. 517/Kol/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09 2. Shri S.P. Lahiri, learned CIT/Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue and Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, learned AR represented on behalf of the assessee. 3. In the revenue appeal in ITA No. 517/Kol/2012 for the A.Y 2008-09, the revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,17,28,868/- made by the Assessing Officer on the ground of additional depreciation without appreciating the fact that the case of the assessee falls under clause(i) of sub section (1) of Section 32 for which there is no additional depreciation avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [(2008) 114 ITD 573 (Chennai)] and in that view, in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 9,20,997/- being Service Tax paid during the year. 5.. In regard to ground nos.1 & 2 of revenue's appeal, it was submitted by the learned CIT/Sr.DR that in the course of assessment the AO had disallowed the claim of additional depreciation made by the assessee in respect of power plant. It was the submission that the AO was of the view that as depreciation having been allowed to the assessee u/s. 32(1)(i) of the Act, additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) was not available in so far as additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act was allowable only u/s. 32(1)(ii). It was the submission that the ld.CIT(A) had wrongly allowed the assessee's claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the cases of Hi-Tech Arai Limited, VTM Limited Texmo Precision Castings (refer to supra) for the purpose of holding that the assessee is eligible for additional depreciation as per provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. In the absence of any decision to the contrary much less any decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court on the issue to the contrary, we are of the view that the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue is on a right footing and does not call for any interference, in so far as he has followed the judicial discipline in following the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court (refer to supra) and granted the relief to the assessee. In the circumstances, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve considered the rival submission. A perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance by holding that the payments are in the nature of expenditure for underwriting commission and brokerage paid for certification fees allowable under section 35D of the Act. Admittedly, the fact that the AO is able to extract the figures in paras 4.8 and 4.9 of his order would clearly show that all the papers were before the AO. Further, no affidavit has been filed before the tribunal under Rule 11 of the I.T Rules nor the revenue has been able to substantiate that such evidences were not before the AO by production of any record. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the finding of the ld.CIT(A) on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
