TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IGH COURT] and M/s Aztec Auto Pvt. Ltd. . [ 2020 (9) TMI 541 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and further the additional depreciation claimed was already imbibed in Section 32(1) (iia) of the Act. Thus, the additional depreciation is allowable depreciation and the amendment is not applicable in present assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 in assessee s case. Further, no distinguishing facts were presented before us by the Ld. DR. Therefore, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are allowed. - ITA No. 7815/DEL/2017 - - - Dated:- 11-11-2021 - MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Sh. M. K. Giri, Adv Respondent by : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd Vs ACIT, Circle-1, Range-1, Kochi, [2014] 45 taxmann.com vide order dated 20/12/2013 in ITA No. 616/Coch/2011). 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition on account of interest income adjusted with MSEB of Rs. K 9,56,-530/-. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition on account of undisclosed income / TDS of ₹ 62,970/-. 3. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of auto motive butyl tubes, tyres building machines, moulds and compound mixing. The assessee Company filed its return of income of ₹ 43,36,31,320/- on 30/11/2014. The assessee claimed amount of ₹ 57,91,898/- on account of ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eciation claimed of ₹ 15,24,17,363/-. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in case of Brakes India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (T.C.A. No. 551 of 2013 order dated 14.03.2017) and CIT vs. M/s Aztec Auto Pvt. Ltd. (T.C.A. No. 267 of 2020 order dated 07.09.2020). As regards Ground No. 3 4, the Ld. AR submitted that the same are not pressed. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that this issue is already considered by the Hon ble Madras High Court in case of Brakes India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and M/s Aztec Auto Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and further the additional depreciation cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(1) of the Act, as it now stands, was substituted by the Finance Act, 2005, applicable with effect from 01.04.2006. Prior to that, a proviso to the said Clause was there, which provided for the benefit to be given only to a new industrial undertaking, or only where a new industrial undertaking begins to manufacture or produce during any year previous to the relevant assessment year. 8. The aforesaid two conditions, i.e., the undertaking acquiring new plant and machinery should be a new industrial undertaking, or that it should be claimed in one year, have been down away by substituting clause (iia) with effect from 01.04.2006. The grant of additional depreciation, under the aforesaid provision, is for the benefit of the assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, these are provisions included by the Legislature in the Statute to give a fillip to new industries as also to existing industries, which seek to expand its sway, by investing in and making use of new plant and machinery. 10.1. The plain language of Section 32(1)(iia) read along with the relevant proviso would have us come to the conclusion that, there is no limitation in the assessee claiming the balance 10% of additional depreciation in the succeeding assessment year. 10.2. As a matter of fact, with effect from 01.04.2016, the ambiguity, if any, in this regard, in the mind of the Assessing Officer, stands removed by virtue of the Legislature, incorporating in the Statute, the necessary clarificatory amendment. Thus, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
