TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years it cannot be denied any benefit on the ground that it had acquired the P M in earlier year. The intent of the legislature was to attract investment, so in our opinion the section can be termed as benevolent provision. In the case under consideration production started from 01.01.2006. Before that fabrication and completion of P M was going on. Treatment given by the assessee in the books of accounts to the P M was in accordance with the Accounting Standards (AS)and the AO/FAA has not denied the fact that the assessee was following AS. Therefore, in our opinion, assessee was entitled to claim AD @of 10%. Reversing the order of the FAA, we decide the effective ground of appeal in favour of the assessee. Similar view was also express ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r under section 143(3)/254/147 of the Act, on the issue of additional depreciation the AO granted relief of ₹ 37,48,136/ and sustained the disallowance of ₹ 21,62,782/ with the finding that the twin conditions i.e., the assets should be acquired and installed after 31.03.2005, was not satisfied. In the present case, the asset was acquired before 31.03.2003 but installed after 31.03.2005. As per the opinion of AO, assessee is entitled to claim normal depreciation but not additional depreciation. Accordingly the additional depreciation was disallowed. In response to reliance on the decision of coordinate bench in the case of M/s Euro Pratik Ispat Private Limited (ITA No. 1682/M/2011 dated 02.04.2014), assessing officer observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther he brought to our notice following case law:- i) PCIT vrs. IDMC Ltd. (2017) 78 taxmann.com 285 (Guj) ii) JCIT vrs. Lotus Energy (India) Ltd (2016) taxamnn.com 364 (Mum-Trib) iii) Euro Pratik Ispat Pvt. Ltd. vrs. ACIT (ITA No. 1682/Mum/2011) 5. On the other hand, Ld DR relied on the findings of lower authorities and submitted that all the case law relied by the AR are already considered by Ld CIT(A) and distinguishable. 6. Considered the rival submissions and material on record. We notice that assessee has purchased the machinery before 31 3 2003 which was part of capital work in progress, which was not installed. Even though assessee has purchased the above said machinery but installed the same after 1.4.2005. The issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r more than a year, the relevant year for the grant of allowance would be the year in which the installation is completed. As in the case of investment allowance, so also in the case of AD, the material date is the date of installation and not the year of acquisition. Our views are based on the judgment of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court, delivered in the case of Surama Tubes(P.)Ltd. (201ITR124).In the case under consideration, AD has been disallowed by the FAA on the ground that P M were acquired before 31.03.2008.In our opinion machinery was installed in the AY. under appeal, though acquisition of the P M had started in the earlier AY. Till a machine is not assembled in a manner that it could be used to manufacture, it cannot be held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
