TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 650
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A)-6/2016-17 dated 28.09.2018 for the assessment year 2013-14. ITA No.3540 of 2018 is an appeal filed by the Revenue and ITA No.3502 of 2018 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai in ITA No.359/CIT(A)-6/2016-17 dated 28.09.2018 for the assessment year 2014-15. As the four appeals relate to the same assessee and have connected issues, all the four appeals are disposed of by this common order. 2. Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, represented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. In respect of the Revenue's appeal in Ground Nos.2.1 to 2.3 for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2.1 to 2.3 for the assessment year 2014....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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 identical and such decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in the assessee's own case for the earlier assessment years and the Ld.CIT(A) has followed judicial discipline in following the decision of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the earlier assessment years, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Consequently, the same has been upheld. 6. In the result, Ground Nos.2.1 to 2.3 of the Revenue's appeal in ITA No.3539 & 3540/Chny/2018 for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively and Ground Nos. 2 to 2.3 of the assessee's appeal in ITA No.3501 & 3502/Chny2018 for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively, stands dismissed. 7. In respect of Ground Nos.3.1 and 3.2 of Revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2013-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) were followed by the Chennai Benches of the Tribunal to arrive at a conclusion that the assessee is entitled to claim 50% of additional depreciation in the succeeding year when the plant and machinery was put in use for less than 180 days in the preceding previous year. 3.6 With regard to the reliance placed by the Id. OR in the case of MM Forgings Ltd. (supra), by considering section 32(1) as well as 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as under: "3. The Assessing Authority by applying the second proviso to section 32 (1) of the Act, restricted the allowability of the depreciation to 50 per cent of the amount permissible under section 32(l)(iia) of the Act. According to the appellant, when it sat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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. 9. In respect of Ground No.3 of the assessee's appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15, it was submitted that the same was against the action of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of the deduction U/s.35(2AB). It was the submission that the R&D facilities in the case of the assessee have been applied by the DSIR for the purpose of the Section 35(2AB) a....