TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amendment to section 32(1)(iia) by Finance Act 2015 came into force only from 01.04.2016 and not retrospectively - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal [ 2017 (5) TMI 1694 - ITAT CHENNAI] , we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Moreover, the ld. DR has not explained the impact on the amendment made vide Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 01.04.2016 by substituting or in the business of generation or generation and distribution in the existing subsection (iia) to section 32(1) of the Act to the earlier decisions of the Tribunal or the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Brakes India Ltd. v. DCIT [ 2017 (4) TMI 511 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] or th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. The Assessing Officer has held that the assessee cannot claim the balance 10% of depreciation in the subsequent year as per provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act by following the decision in the case of MM Forgings Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 349 ITR 673 (Mad). On appeal, by following the decision in the case of Brakes India Ltd. v. DCIT in T.C. A. No. 551 of 2013 dated 14.03.2017 as well as the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee s own case, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. By referring to the grounds of appeal, the ld. DR has submitted that the ld. CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used for less than 180 days only. Therefore, the balance 10% of depreciation has been claimed in the subsequent year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The claim of the assessee was denied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the statute does not provide carry forward the additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act and the same was confirmed by the CIT(A). 7. In the case of M.M. Forgings Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 349 ITR 673 (Mad)], the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court has considered the issue of additional depreciation and also interpreted section 32(1) and 32(1)(iia) and held that if the assessee has used the new plant and machinery below 180 days, it is only eligible for 50% of the additional depre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that when the new asset acquired and put it in use for less than 180 days, as per the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee cannot claim 100% additional depreciation and therefore, restricted 50% of the eligible additional depreciation to the assessee. This case law relied on by the ld. DR has no application to the facts of the present case. If the new asset acquired and installed and put it in use for more than 180 days, the assessee is eligible to claim 20% of additional depreciation. In the present case, the new asset acquired, installed and put it in use for less than 180 days, the assessee has claimed only 10% of the eligible additional depreciation in the relevant assessment year, which was allowed. Since the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery so acquired is put to use for less than 180 days in a financial year. However, it nowhere restricts that the balance 10% would not be allowed to be claimed by the assessee in the next assessment year. 9. The language used in Clause (iia) of the said section clearly provides that a further sum equal to 20% of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under Clause (ii) . The word shall used in the said Clause is very significant. The benefit which is to be granted is 20% additional depreciation. By virtue of the proviso referred to above, only 10% can. be claimed in one year, if plant and machinery is put to use for less than 180 days said financial year. very purpose of insertion of Clause (iia) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above decision of the Tribunal. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Moreover, the ld. DR has not explained the impact on the amendment made vide Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 01.04.2016 by substituting or in the business of generation or generation and distribution in the existing subsection (iia) to section 32(1) of the Act to the earlier decisions of the Tribunal or the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Brakes India Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) or the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue stands dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
