Revenue's appeal dismissed on additional depreciation claim under section 32(1)(iia) for plant machinery operating under 180 days

ITAT Chennai dismissed Revenue's appeal regarding additional depreciation disallowance under section 32(1)(iia). The tribunal held that when plant and machinery operates less than 180 days, assessee can claim 10% additional depreciation in first year and balance 10% in subsequent year, following Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. precedent. On foreign currency gain characterization, matter was remanded to AO for verification of expansion project details. Section 14A disallowance was upheld following Cheminvest Ltd. decision, limiting disallowance to exempt income earned. Forward premium was correctly treated as capital expenditure under section 43A, following Elgi Rubber Products Ltd. and South India Viscose Ltd. precedents.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance of 50% additional depreciation.
2. Addition of notional exchange gain on reinstatement of foreign currency loan.
3. Disallowance of expenses claimed against exempt income u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D.
4. Disallowance of forward premium treating the same as capital expenditure u/s 43A.

Summary:

1. Deletion of Disallowance of 50% Additional Depreciation:
The Revenue's appeal contested the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of 50% additional depreciation made by the AO. The AO had denied the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act, arguing that further depreciation is not allowable in any subsequent assessment year. The CIT(A) allowed the claim following the decisions of ITAT, Chennai Bench and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, which held that the balance 10% additional deduction can be availed in the subsequent assessment year. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision.

2. Addition of Notional Exchange Gain on Reinstatement of Foreign Currency Loan:
The assessee's appeal challenged the addition of notional exchange gain of Rs. 13,97,10,757/- as revenue income. The AO treated the gain as revenue receipt based on the mercantile system of accounting and Accounting Standard-11. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd., which mandates treating foreign exchange gain as income. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for verification of details, as the assessee provided additional evidence that was not previously examined.

3. Disallowance of Expenses Claimed Against Exempt Income u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D:
The assessee's appeal also contested the CIT(A)'s enhancement of disallowance to Rs. 18,28,080/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii), which was initially Rs. 4,57,368/- by the AO. The CIT(A) followed the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd., which allows disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of exempt income earned. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the assessee's appeal on this issue.

4. Disallowance of Forward Premium Treating the Same as Capital Expenditure u/s 43A:
In another appeal, the assessee challenged the disallowance of forward premium of Rs. 4,04,25,325/- treated as capital expenditure. The AO and CIT(A) applied the provisions of section 43A, treating the forward premium related to foreign currency loans for capital expenditure as capital in nature. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, referencing the provisions of section 43A and relevant case law, affirming the decisions of the AO and CIT(A).

Conclusion:
- The Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 940/CHNY/2017 is dismissed.
- The assessee's appeal in ITA No. 895/CHNY/2017 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
- The assessee's appeal in ITA No. 896/CHNY/2017 is dismissed.

---