2022 (3) TMI 1184 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal grants additional depreciation claim but dismisses disallowance appeal for lack of expenditure proof.

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's claim for the balance additional depreciation for AY 2013-14, holding that the remaining 50% could be claimed in the ... Additional depreciation in case of acquisition and installation of new machinery or plant by an Assessee after 31 March, 2005 - Only 50% of the additional depreciation was allowed in AY 2012-13 and balance 50% of the Additional Depreciation is claimed in the AY 2013-14 - HELD THAT:- As decided in M/S. DAMODAR JAGANNATH MALPANI [2021 (10) TMI 416 - ITAT PUNE] appellant is eligible to claim the balance additional depreciation in AY 2013-14 on the new assets purchased in AY 2012-13 but only half the additional depreciation were claimed by the appellant in AY 2012-13 as the assets were used for less than 6 months. Thus, the appeal in Ground No. 1 of the assessee is allowed. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- We find that there is exempt income earned by the appellant. No new facts have been brought to our notice. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is confirmed. Accordingly, the appeal in Ground No. 2 of assessee is dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of Additional Depreciation Claim2. Disallowance under Rule 8D read with Section 14A of the Income Tax ActIssue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Additional Depreciation ClaimThe appellant had purchased certain assets on 30/09/2011 and claimed 50% of the additional depreciation in AY 2012-13, intending to claim the remaining 50% in AY 2013-14. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim for AY 2013-14, and the CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, stating that the existing provision of Section 32(1)(iia) did not allow for the carry-forward of additional depreciation to subsequent years. The CIT(A) noted that an amendment allowing such a carry-forward was made effective from 1st April 2016 and applied from AY 2016-17 onwards.However, the Tribunal referred to the judgment in the case of Damodar Jagannath Malpani vs. DCIT, where it was held that the remaining 50% of additional depreciation could be claimed in the subsequent year, even without the statutory amendment. The Tribunal also referred to the judgments of the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. and the Madras High Court in Shri T.P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd., which supported the appellant's claim. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was eligible to claim the balance additional depreciation in AY 2013-14, thus allowing the appeal on this ground.2. Disallowance under Rule 8D read with Section 14A of the Income Tax ActThe Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,84,917 under Rule 8D read with Section 14A, related to the disallowance of expenditure incurred in earning exempt income. The appellant contended that the investments were made out of surplus funds and no borrowed funds were used, and no expenditure was claimed in the books of accounts for earning the dividend income. However, the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating that some expenditure is required to earn such income and to manage the investment portfolio, and since the appellant did not show any expenditure against such income, the provisions of Section 14A were applicable.The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and the orders of the lower authorities, found that the exempt income was indeed earned by the appellant and no new facts were presented to challenge the disallowance. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal on this ground.ConclusionThe Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, granting the appellant's claim for the balance additional depreciation for AY 2013-14 while dismissing the appeal regarding the disallowance under Rule 8D read with Section 14A. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 14th March 2022.