TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the fact that there is no outstanding capital in working progress as on 31.03.2012 also goes to prove this fact. Thus, there is no evidence on record to say that the assets were not put to use. The mere fact that the assessee company had worked at 20% of the capacity does not imply that the assets were not put to use. In-fact, it clearly indicates that the assets were put to use and the assessee is entitled to depreciation. In the light of the above factual position, the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) have no application and we do not find any illegality in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, we do not find any merit in the first ground raised by the Revenue. Hence, the first ground of appeal stands dismissed. Addition of depreciatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has failed to justify through documentary evidences and supporting material the installation certificate or any other supportive documentary evidence inspite of sufficient opportunity granted by the A.O. during assessment proceedings ? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of depreciation and additional depreciation by not appreciating that the assessee has failed to produce proof of machinery put to use for business when the onus to prove that the borrowed capital was actually put to use and there is a commencement of business from the installed machineries and assets as well as the working capital is also poured into the business lies on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer noticing that the appellant incurred interest expenditure of ₹ 10,54,08,247/- disallowed the same placing reliance on the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Similarly, the Assessing Officer also denied the depreciation and the additional depreciation of 80% of the cost of the plant and machinery. 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order deleted these disallowances agreeing with the submissions of the assessee that the fixed assets purchased have been capitalized and the assets have been put to use. 6. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is before us in the present appeal. 7. The ld. CIT-DR sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allation and testing of machinery. The fact that the assessee company worked at 20% of its capacity does not imply that the assets are not put to use. It is settled position of law once the business is set-up and ready to commence the business, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the assets. In the present case, the facts of the present case stand on better footing. It is an admitted fact that the assessee company had commenced operation, worked at 20% of its capacity which clearly denotes that the assets were put to use and the fact that there is no outstanding capital in working progress as on 31.03.2012 also goes to prove this fact. Thus, there is no evidence on record to say that the assets were not put to use. The mere fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
