TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RT] and it is also noticed that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case. In this circumstances, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same stands upheld. Consequently, Ground Nos. 3.1 to 3.2 of Revenue s appeal for the assessment years 2013-14 2014-15 stands dismissed. In the result the appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed. Disallowance of the deduction U/s.35(2AB) - R D facilities in the case of the assessee have been applied by the DSIR for the purpose of the Section 35(2AB) - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the AO has not considered the applicability of the provisions of Section 35(1)(iv), in respect of disallowance made by denying the benefit of the exemption U/s.35(2AB), the issue is restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication in line with the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Tube Investments of India [ 2002 (9) TMI 45 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] Consequently Ground No.3 for both of the assessee s appeal for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. Nos. 35 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld. CIT(A) in his order and cited by the rival sides in the light of relevant clauses of agreement and find that the ld. CIT(A), while relying upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Southern Switchgear Ltd. (supra) (order dated 11.12.1997), has directed the Assessing Officer to treat 25% of the royalty payment as capital expenditure and the balance 75% as revenue expenditure and the Assessing Officer has further been directed to allow appropriate depreciation on the 25% capital expenditure in accordance with law and while doing so, the ld. CIT(A) has preferred to follow the above decision, which was pronounced later to that of CIT v. IAEC (Pumps) Ltd. 232 ITR 316 (SC) ( order dated 03.04.1997), which according to him would prevail. 7.1 We have considered the arguments of rival sides and materials on record in the light of precedent relied upon. We have also considered the basis and reasoning as given by the ld. CIT(A) in giving part relief to the assessee. So far as the facts of the case in hand and point at issue decided by the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Southern Switchgears Ltd. (supra) is concerned, it is almost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the identical grounds 3.1 and 3.2 of Revenue s appeal for the assessment year 2014-15, it was submitted by the Ld.DR that the issue was against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in allowing the balance of the additional depreciation carried forward from the earlier assessment year. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case in ITA No.2667 of 2016 dated 28.07.2017 for the assessment year 2010-11, wherein in Para No.3.5 to 3.8, it has been held as follows:- 3.5 We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, with regard to the claim of balance additional depreciation, by relying on the decision in the case of Lakshmi Technology and Engineering Industries Ltd. v. DCIT in I.T.A. No. 492/Mds/20 15 dated 26.04.2016, the Id. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance made on this count. In the case of Lakshmi Technology and Engineering Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (supra), the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal followed its own decision in the case of Automotive Coaches Components Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for restriction to 50% of the amount allowable under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, where the plant and machineries were put to use less than 180 days in that particular year and did not speak anything about the allowance of balance 50% of the additional-depreciation. 3.8 In the case of CIT v. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, after extracting the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, found that beneficial legislation has to be interpreted liberally so as to benefit the assessee, The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has also found that the intention of the legislation is to allow additional benefit. The Karnataka High Court opined that the proviso would not restrain the assessee from claiming the balance of the benefit of additional depreciation in the subsequent assessment year. In view of the above ratio laid down by Hon ble Karnataka High Court, the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M.M. Forgings Ltd. (supra), relied on by the ld. DR cannot be applied because, by respectfully agreeing with the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Rittal India (P.) Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 35(1)(iv) of the Act. It was the submission that in the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had rejected the claim of the assessee U/s.35(2AB) of the Act for want of approval from DSIR in Form 3CL. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer nor the Ld.CIT(A) had considered the assessee s claim for allowance U/s.35(1)(iv) of the Act. It was the submission that the assessee had no objection if the issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and re-adjudication of issue in line with the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Tube Investments of India reported in 250 ITR 94 (Madras). In reply, the Ld.DR did not raise any serious objections. 10. Considering the submission of the Ld.AR and also considering the fact that the Assessing Officer has not considered the applicability of the provisions of Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act, in respect of disallowance made by denying the benefit of the exemption U/s.35(2AB) of the Act, the issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication in line with the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Tube Investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
