2016 (1) TMI 351 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds CIT(A) Decisions on Tax and Depreciation, Emphasizes Legal Principles

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur Versus M/s J.K. Cement, Kamla Tower

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals in both cases, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on the correct computation of tax and the allowance of ... MAT computation - whether the surcharge and educational cess is leviable only after giving credit for MAT and thereafter the tax computation made by the AO in ITNS-7 attached with the impugned order dated 27.11.2014, is not a correct way of tax calculation? - Held that:- CIT(A) has correctly understood the mode of computation of tax and issued correct direction to the AO that while computing the tax, first give credit of MAT and thereafter, charge the surcharge & education cess. Since we do not find any infirmity in the direction of the CIT(A) we confirm this order. - Decided against revenue Additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) - Withdrawal of additional depreciation earlier allowed to the assessee by AO u/s 154 - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that:- Additional depreciation cannot be denied to the assessee merely on the ground that electricity is not a article or thing. Since the issue is highly debatable, a view taken by the AO while computing the assessment cannot be revised u/s 154 of the Act. We therefore, find no justification to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) as he has rightly adjudicated the issue. - Decided against revenue Issues:1. Correct computation of tax - MAT credit, surcharge, and education cess.2. Allowance of additional depreciation for power generating units under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue 1: Correct computation of tax - MAT credit, surcharge, and education cessIn the case of ITA No. 514/LKW/2015 for AY 2007-08, the Revenue appealed against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order allowing relief of Rs. 46,39,905 by directing the AO to first give MAT credit before charging surcharge and education cess. The AO initially calculated tax by giving MAT credit and then levying surcharge and education cess. However, a subsequent order revised this method, leading to a notice u/s 154 proposing rectification. The appellant contended that surcharge and education cess should be levied only after giving MAT credit, citing relevant case laws. The CIT(A) upheld this contention, directing the AO accordingly. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding it correct in understanding the tax computation method.Issue 2: Allowance of additional depreciation for power generating unitsIn ITA No. 513/Lkw/2015 for AY 2008-09, the Revenue challenged the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to allow Rs. 31,53,46,771 as additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) for power generating units. The AO initially allowed this depreciation, but later, through a notice u/s 154, sought to withdraw it, arguing that electricity generation did not qualify as manufacturing or production of an article or thing. The CIT(A) disagreed, citing the Supreme Court's view on electric energy and other judicial precedents. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A), noting that the issue was debatable and the AO's rectification u/s 154 was not justified. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the additional depreciation, emphasizing the debatable nature of the issue and the supporting judicial precedents.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals in both cases, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on the correct computation of tax and the allowance of additional depreciation for power generating units. The judgments highlighted the importance of following established legal principles and case laws in determining tax liabilities and depreciation claims.