2014 (2) TMI 1363 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Grants Additional Depreciation for Machinery Rolls

Adarsh Steel Rolling Mills Versus D.C.I.T. Mandi Gobidgarh

The Tribunal allowed the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee on rolls under the head of 'plant & machinery,' overturning the decision of ... Disallowance of “additional depreciation” claimed on addition of rolls under the head “plant & Machinery.” - HELD THAT:- When ever new plant & Machinery is acquired or installed, additional depreciation is to be allowed. The conditions relating to allowance of additional depreciation in that case of new industrial undertaking has been dispensed with Finance Act, 2005 w.e.f. 1.4.2005. It cannot be doubted that rolls are part of machinery that is why normal depreciation of 80% has been allowed by the Assessing officer, therefore in our opinion, the assessee was also entitled to additional depreciation in terms of Sec 32(1)((iia) particularly in the light of para 3.6 of Circular No. 8 of 2008. Accordingly we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing officer to allow additional depreciation - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. Issues: Disallowance of additional depreciation claimed on rolls under the head 'plant & machinery'In this case, the main issue revolves around the disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee on rolls under the head of 'plant & machinery.' The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, stating that the rolls could not be considered as new machinery entitled to additional depreciation as they were part of the existing machinery used in the steel mill. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld this decision, emphasizing that rolls were consumable items and did not constitute machinery on their own. The appellant argued that the rolls were part of the machinery, citing Circular No. 8 of 2008, which removed the requirement of an increase in capacity for claiming additional depreciation. The Tribunal analyzed Section 32(1)(iia) and the circular, concluding that when new plant and machinery are acquired or installed, additional depreciation should be allowed. They noted that rolls were indeed part of the machinery, as evidenced by the normal depreciation allowed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee.This judgment highlights the interpretation of provisions under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 concerning the allowance of additional depreciation on new machinery or plant acquired and installed after a specific date. It also delves into the significance of circulars issued by the Board, such as Circular No. 8 of 2008, in clarifying conditions for claiming additional depreciation. The case underscores the importance of distinguishing between consumable items and machinery for the purpose of depreciation claims, emphasizing the need for a clear understanding of what constitutes eligible assets for depreciation benefits. The decision showcases the Tribunal's role in interpreting statutory provisions and circulars to determine the applicability of tax benefits in specific scenarios, ensuring a fair and accurate assessment of claims made by taxpayers.