TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim for Section 80IB deduction increased, when it sought to withdraw the additional depreciation claim. However, that single circumstance should not influence this court to ignore the plain intendment of the statute, since Parliament clearly stated that the provisions of “this sub-section” would apply, “whether or not the assessee has claimed the deduction in respect of depreciation in computing his total income”. This court cannot re-write the statute, as is sought to be urged. For these reasons, the Court is of the opinion that no question of law arises on this aspect. Investment in redeemable preference shares as treated as international transaction and subjected to adjustment - Held that:- Tribunal need not have felt constrained by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mination under Section 92C of the 1961 Act? 2. The third question urged by the assessee is with respect to the interpretation of Section 32(1)(iia). This is the compulsory allowance of the claim of additional depreciation amounting to ₹538,66,55,780/- under Section 32 (iia) of the Act holding the same as mandatory. 3. Facts in respect of this issue are that the assessee claimed depreciation amounting to ₹503.24 crore apart from additional depreciation (₹538.66 crore) in the revised return. Later, by a letter dated 07.01.2005 filed during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee withdrew the claim of additional depreciation amounting to ₹538.66 crore. Resultantly, the original deduction claim under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot thrust upon him. To remedy the situation flowing from such judgment, the Legislature brought in Explanation 5 to Section 32 (ii) through the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01.04.2002. The Explanation provides that the ... provisions of this sub-section shall apply whether or not the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of depreciation in computing his total income . The effect of this Explanation is that deduction on account of depreciation has to be mandatorily allowed under Section 32 (ii) of the Act notwithstanding the fact that assessee claims or does not claim it in the computation of its total income. 22. The ld. Authorized Representative contended that the Explanation does not cover the assessee's case inasmuch as the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized Representative that the mandate of Explanation 5 does not apply to relief under clause (iia) as the same has been placed under clause (ii), in our view, is far-fetched. It is no doubt clear that Explanation 5 granting mandatory depreciation is placed in clause (ii) of Section 32 (1) of the Act, but when we consider the language of clause (iia) providing further deduction for depreciation @ 20%, it becomes vivid that such further claim shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii) . It ergo becomes overt that the claim for additional depreciation as provided under clause (iia) has to be allowed as deduction under clause (ii). So, for all practical purposes, the claim for additional depreciation has to be considered and allowed as ded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that an Explanation must be interpreted having regard to the context, purpose and legislative history. Reliance was placed on M/s. Patel Roadways Ltd. v. MIS. Prasad Trading Co. (AIR 1992 SC 1514) and Mohanlal Hargovinddas v. State of M.P.(AIR 1967 SC 1022) and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bagri Foundation (2012) 344 ITR 193 (Del), to advance this proposition. It was further argued that additional depreciation under Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act is in the nature of an incentive and cannot therefore, be treated at par with normal depreciation (on account of wear and tear and obsolescence) and as mandatory and not optional in nature. Counsel urged that Explanation 5 was inserted below Section 32(l)(i) and (ii) of the Act and thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2005, by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing or in the business of generation or generation and distribution of power, a further sum equal to twenty per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii) : ............ 6. This court is of opinion that the plain text of the explanation leaves no room for admitting the interpretive gloss that the assessee wishes to place over it. There can be a multitude of circumstances where, but for the provision, the incentive, available to all those for whom the benefit of additional depreciation was intended, could have been deprived of it. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
