2019 (1) TMI 1899 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT (A) decisions for AY 2012-13. Disallowance under section 14A not applicable. Additional depreciation deletion upheld.

The D.C.I.T -14 (2) (1), Mumbai Versus M/s Positive Packaging Industries Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2012-13, upholding the decisions of the Ld. CIT (A) on both issues. The disallowance ... Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) has held that the appellant had sufficient own funds as well as interest free funds available which was more than the amount of investment made by the assessee. Since, the assessee had sufficient interest free funds, the Ld.CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition made u/s 14A read with rule 8D (2)(ii) of the Rules in the light of the judgment in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank [2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. The assessee has not earned any exempt income, no question of disallowance does arise. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Cheminvest Ltd.[2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that in order to apply the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D, there should be an actual receipt of income which is not includible in the total income during the relevant previous year or in other words section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Since, the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) are based on the law laid down there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) and dismissed this ground of appeal of the revenue. Additional depreciation u/s 32 (1)(iia) - plants and machinery acquired and installed in the preceding year - Asset put to use for less than 180 days in the previous year - HELD THAT:- In the case of CIT vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd.[2016 (1) TMI 81 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee. In the said case the assessee had acquired and installed new plant and machinery in the assessment year 2007-08 and was put to use for a period of less than 180 days. The assessee claimed 10% additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) in the assessment year 2007-08, which was allowed by AO. However, balance 10% was rejected in the assessment year 2008-09. In the first appeal the CIT(A) affirmed the action of the AO. But in the second appeal the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim. In the further appeal the Hon’ble High court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal and held that the assessee is entitled for 50% depreciation in the subsequent year. Issues:1. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Additional depreciation claim under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act.Issue 1 - Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D:The appeal was filed by the revenue against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decision to allow the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order. The assessee had not made a suo moto disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The AO made a disallowance under Rule 8D (2)(ii) & (iii), which the Ld. CIT (A) deleted. The revenue challenged this decision. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT (A) based on various High Court judgments and ITAT decisions. The Tribunal found that as the assessee had sufficient own and interest-free funds, no disallowance was necessary under section 14A. The Tribunal referred to judgments like CIT vs. HDFC Bank and Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT to support its decision.Issue 2 - Additional depreciation claim under section 32(1)(iia):The revenue challenged the deletion of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee under section 32(1)(iia) for plants and machinery put to use for less than 180 days in the preceding year. The Ld. CIT (A) had deleted the additional depreciation, which the Tribunal upheld. The Tribunal referred to various decisions of ITAT and the High Court of Karnataka to support its decision. The Tribunal cited the case of CIT vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., where the High Court held that the assessee is entitled to 50% depreciation in the subsequent year if the plant and machinery were put to use for less than 180 days in the previous year. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT (A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2012-13, upholding the decisions of the Ld. CIT (A) on both issues. The judgment was pronounced on 31st January 2019.