Partial Win: ITAT Confirms Eligibility for 50% Depreciation on Short-Term Used Plant and Machinery u/s 32(1)(iia.

The appeal concerning the disallowance of additional depreciation was partly allowed. The ITAT upheld the assessee's eligibility to claim the balance 50% depreciation for plant and machinery used for less than 180 days in the previous year, as per Section 32(1)(iia). The AO was directed to allow the claim, resolving the issue in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
- Disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee. The assessee withdrew one ground, leaving ground No.2, which challenged the disallowance of additional depreciation. The assessee had claimed only 50% of the additional depreciation for plant and machinery used for less than 180 days in the previous year. The claim for the balance of additional depreciation for the impugned assessment year was declined by the Assessing Officer. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 32(1)(iia) and the relevant provisos regarding the allowance of balance depreciation in the succeeding assessment year. The judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. T.P. Textiles (P) Ltd was cited, emphasizing that there was no limitation on the assessee claiming the balance depreciation in the succeeding assessment year.

The judgment highlighted the clarificatory amendment brought in by the legislature, removing any ambiguity regarding the allowance of balance depreciation. The amendment provided that the balance 50% of the additional depreciation on new plant or machinery acquired and used for less than 180 days should be allowed in the immediately succeeding previous year. The court emphasized that the amendment was clarificatory and not prospective, aiming to eliminate discrimination in allowing additional depreciation based on the period of use of plant or machinery. The court upheld that the assessee was eligible to claim the balance depreciation in the impugned assessment year. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the claim, leading to the allowance of ground No.2 of the assessee.

In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with the judgment clarifying the eligibility of the assessee to claim the balance depreciation as per the relevant provisions and amendments. The decision was pronounced on a specific date in Chennai, marking the resolution of the appeal in favor of the assessee concerning the disallowance of additional depreciation claimed.

---