Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was allowable on interest and dividend income from investments with cooperative societies and cooperative banks; (ii) whether the balance additional depreciation relating to machinery installed in the preceding year was allowable for Assessment Year 2016-17; and (iii) whether milk cans and artificial insemination and laboratory-testing equipment qualified as plant and machinery for additional depreciation.
Issue (i): Whether deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was allowable on interest and dividend income from investments with cooperative societies and cooperative banks.
Analysis: The issue stood covered by the earlier decision in the assessee's own case. Income received from investments in cooperative societies and cooperative banks satisfied the statutory requirement for deduction.
Conclusion: Deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was allowable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the balance additional depreciation relating to machinery installed in the preceding year was allowable for Assessment Year 2016-17.
Analysis: The third proviso permitting the unavailed balance of additional depreciation in the immediately succeeding previous year took effect from 1 April 2016. As the matter concerned Assessment Year 2016-17, the statutory entitlement applied.
Conclusion: The balance additional depreciation was allowable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Issue (iii): Whether milk cans and artificial insemination and laboratory-testing equipment qualified as plant and machinery for additional depreciation.
Analysis: The issue was governed by an earlier decision in the assessee's own case. Milk cans had been treated as plant for normal depreciation and fell within the definition of plant; therefore, additional depreciation could not be denied where the remaining conditions were met.
Conclusion: The milk cans and relevant equipment qualified for additional depreciation. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The deductions and additional-depreciation claims sustained by the appellate authorities remained available to the assessee for the relevant assessment years.