TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 2024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. T.P. Textiles (P) Ltd [ 2017 (3) TMI 739 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein as held upon a plain reading of the unamended provision, it could not be said that the Assessee could not claim balance depreciation in the A.Y., which follows the A.Y., in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days . We, are therefore of the opinion that assessee was eligible for claiming balance 10% of the depreciation in the impugned assessment year. AO is directed to allow such claim. Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member And Shri George Mathan, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri. SP. Chidambaram, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 10.3. The amendment brought in the relevant proviso obtaining in Section 32, reads as follows: .... 32. (1) ...... Provided also that where an asset referred to in clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2016-17 and subsequent assessment years. 11.2. A perusal of the extract of the Memorandum relied upon would show that the legislature recognised the fact that the manner in which the Revenue chose to interpret the provision, as it stood prior to its amendment would lead to discrimination, in respect of plant and machinery, which was used for less than 180 days, as against that, which was used for 180 days or more. 11.3. In our opinion, as indicated above, the amendment is clarificatory in nature and not prospective, as is sought to be contended by the Revenue. The Memorandum cannot be read in the manner, in which, the Revenue has sought to read it, which is, that the amendment brought in would apply only prospectively. 11.4. We are, clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
