TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o restriction in the Income Tax Act that balance of one-time-incentive in the form of additional sum of depreciation cannot be availed in the subsequent year. Assessee refers to and relies on the judgments T P Textiles (P) Ltd. [ 2017 (3) TMI 739 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] and Rittal India (P) Ltd [ 2016 (1) TMI 81 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. Also argued that the clarificatory amendment made to Section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 01.10.2016 supports the deduction claimed by the assessee. The amendment, no doubt, was introduced with effect from 01.10.2016, is a clarificatory amendment. The decisions relied on by the assessee are directly on the point and we are in full agreement with the view taken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - ITA No. 87 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 2-8-2021 - Honourable Mr.Justice S.V.Bhatti And Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas For the Appellant : Advs. Sri.Christopher Abraham, Income Tax Department, Sri.K.M.V.Pandalai, Income Tax Department For the Respondent : Advs. Sri.V.Abraham Markos, Sri.V.Abraham Markos, Sri.Abraham Joseph Markos, Sri.Binu Mathew, Sri.Isaac Thomas Sri.Joseph Markose Sr., Sri.Noby Thomas Cyriac And Sri.Tom Thomas Kakkuzhiyil JUDGMENT S.V.BHATTI, J. Heard learned Standing Counsel Mr. Christopher Abraham and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joseph Markos for parties. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax/Revenue is the appellant. M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pretation against law and the intention of the legislature? 4.1 The circumstances leading to the disagreement between the Revenue and the assessee are not in dispute and the fact that the assessee at the first instance availed 50% of additional depreciation allowed under Section32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed depreciation on account of the fact that the equipment for which depreciation was claimed was not used was not used for more than 180 days in the previous year 2006-07. Thus, the assessee claimed 10% of permissible 20% depreciation in the previous year 2006-07 and claimed balance 50%, i.e., 10% of 20%, in the Assessment Year 2007-08. The Tribunal held that there is no restriction in the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing the balance investment of the Appellant amounting to Rs.51,80,000/- in Gujarat Perstop Electronics Ltd. (GPEL) 5.1 The reframed question has bearing on the view expressed by this Court on a similar question stated in the Assessment Year 2002-03 and the judgment is reported in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Apollo Tyres Ltd (2019) 419 ITR 100 . Point no.3 in the reported judgment deals with these aspects of the matter and by following the judgment in Apollo Tyres Ltd (supra) , the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 6. Substantial question nos.4 and 5 read thus: 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that DG Power G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
