TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is allowable in first year only. Provisions of section 32(1)(iia) and second proviso to section 32 should be read and construed reasonably, liberally and purposefully. If the acquired asset is used for less than 180 days in year one than the allowable additional depreciation is restricted to 50% in the first year and balance 50% additional depreciation is allowable in subsequent year. There is no restriction vis-avis the number of assessment years over which the additional depreciation is to be allowed. The issue under consideration is also squarely covered by the order of coordinate bench in the case of SIL Investment Ltd [ 2012 (6) TMI 83 - ITAT DELHI] wherein it was held that additional depreciation, which was restricted in the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nature of TUF subsidy in case of some other assessee that itself cannot be said to be sufficient ground to readjudicate or to reconsider the already concluded assessment. If such a course would be allowed to be adopted, then, it may give rise to a number of claims for readjudication of several already concluded cases and such course will be against the principle of finality of proceedings at one stage and would violate the object and purpose of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. In view of this, we do not find that treatment of TUF subsidy offered by assessee and accepted by the AO as revenue receipt, under the facts and circumstances of this case, was a mistake apparent on record. - ITA Nos.790&791/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2016 - SHR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- 1) Normal Depreciation 17,46,68,652 2) Additional depreciation on asses acquired in AY 09-10 3,32,52,814 3) 50% of additional depreciation on assets acquired in AY 08-09 which were put to use for less than 180 days 72,91,851 4) Total depreciation claimed in AY 09-10 21,52,13,317 The assessee further submitted that section 32(1)(iia) of the Act provides that additional depreciation @ 20% shall be allowed to the assessee on the actual cost of new plant and machinery, which has been acquired after 31.03.2005. The seco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 72,91,851/- was withdrawn and the net loss was recomputed at ₹ 14,44,54,589/-. 4. By the impugned order, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. We have considered rival contentions and found from the record that in the return of income assessee had claimed additional depreciation of ₹ 72,91,851/ - u/ s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) @ 10% on the eligible assets acquired during the financial year 2007-08 and which were used for less than 180 days in the financial year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer ['AO'] completed assessment u/s 143(3) vide dated 30.11.2011 after detailed scrutiny and allowed the claim of the assessee Company f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the succeeding year. In view of the above, we do not find any merit for disallowing assessee s claim for depreciation. 8. In the assessment year 2009-2010, assessee has raised additional ground with regard to TUF subsidy received from Central Government under Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUF). 9. We find that the assessee himself had offered the said subsidy for taxation in the return of income as a revenue receipt. The AO accordingly assessed the income of the assessee treating the said subsidy as revenue receipt. The assessee never raised this issue in appeal before the CIT(A). Thereafter the AO disallowed the addition claim of depreciation by way of rectification u/s.154 of the Act as discussed in the ground No.1. Even durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake apparent on record with regard to nature of TUF subsidy. Even as discussed above, the assessee has not raised the said issue even during the proceedings u/s.154 before the AO or during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). Merely because subsequently a coordinate bench of the Tribunal has taken some view with regard to nature of TUF subsidy in case of some other assessee that itself cannot be said to be sufficient ground to readjudicate or to reconsider the already concluded assessment. If such a course would be allowed to be adopted, then, it may give rise to a number of claims for readjudication of several already concluded cases and such course will be against the principle of finality of proceedings at one stage and would vio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
