TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stantial questions of law raised for consideration have been answered against the revenue in C.I.T. Vs. Aztec Auto (P.) Ltd., [ 2020 (9) TMI 541 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein held that where the assessee had claimed arrears on depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) in respect of asset under head 'plant and machinery' acquired in second half of the financial year 2007-2008, for which additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he following Substantial Questions of Law for consideration: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding additional depreciation can be allowed in the next year in case the same cannot be allowed in the earlier year? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in ignoring the jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said decision, it has been held that where the assessee had claimed arrears on depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) in respect of asset under head 'plant and machinery' acquired in second half of the financial year 2007-2008, for which additional depreciation at ten percentage was allowed for the assessment year 2008-2009, the same held to be eligible. The operative portion of the Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee and in which decision, the decision in the case of Rittal India Ltd., was also referred to. 11. The learned senior counsel for the revenue also pointed out that so far as the claim of balance 50% of the amount as deduction was provided for inserting the proviso under section 32(1) and such insertion was with effect from 1-4- 2016 by Finance Act, 2015. 12. In our considered view, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
