9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench, (for brevity, the Tribunal), the Revenue has filed the above appeals. 2.1 The assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of Foundries. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had claimed additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Years 2007-2008, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 on the opening Written Down Value [WDV] on the plant and machinery purchased in the earlier years. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee had claimed the additional depreciation on the second half of the financial years 2005-06, 2007-08 and 2008-09 @ 10% on these plant and machineries and the remaining 10% in the subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forward the balance additional depreciation to the following years?" 3. When the appeals are taken up for hearing, Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant, fairly submitted that the questions of law involved in the present appeals were already decided against the Revenue in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 18.03.2020 in T.C.A. No 228 of 2011 [M/s. Comstar Automative Technologies Private Ltd., Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu District - v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle - I (3), Chennai], wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench held as follows:- " ................ 26. In the aforesaid Judgment, the reason for such conclusion arrived at by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Assessment Years and set off the unabsorbed depreciation first and making the return Nil, thereby leaving the Assessee in a position where it could not claim any deduction under Section 10B as there was no income after set off of carry forward depreciation and unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years. 29. This method of computing the income in the present case made by the Revenue is totally against the said law as has been declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Yokogawa India Ltd., (cited supra). 30. Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that, the decision of the ITAT, which is impugned herein, would not stand in the legal scrutiny, in view of the law having been declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
