TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making disallowance of Rs.9,05,766/- on account of higher depreciation claimed on machines purchased under TUF scheme of the Govt. 2. Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s.143(3) dated 18.12.2008 were that the assessee-company is in the business of manufacturing of texturised yarn. The assessee has claimed depreciation @ 50% on plant & machinery, however, as per AO the eligible rate of depreciation was 25% only. The assessee has informed that the machinery was purchased under Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (in short TUFS), hence eligible for higher rate of depreciation. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee at 0.22%, as against the Oil gain shown in the immediate preceding year at 1.08%. According to AO, although there was no change in the process of manufacturing or in the quality of yarn produced, but there was no justification given that why the Oil gain had reduced from 1.08% of the past year to 0.22% for the year under consideration. The difference between the two percentages was computed at 0.86% and, accordingly, an addition of Rs.4,23,037/- was made. The matter was carried before the first appellate authority. Before the first appellate authority, it was contested that the fall in percentage in Oil gain was due to the use of high speed machine which consumes lower oil in comparison to the older machines. It was also conteste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld.AR has also furnished the calculation of oil gain along with the calculation of the oil consumption. The argument of ld.AR is that the complete record of the consumption and the production had been maintained by this assessee and there was no rejection of books of account, therefore the book result ought to have been accepted. 6. On the other hand, from the side of the Revenue, ld. Sr. DR Mr. Rahul kumar appeared and argued that the drastic fall in the oil gain could not be explained by the assessee, therefore the AO had no option but to apply the same percentage of oil gain for the year under consideration. 7. Having heard the submissions of both the sides and on due consideration of the case laws cited, we have noted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s percentages of oil gain in this line of business in the cited comparable cases, we hereby hold that an adhoc addition of Rs.2 lacs shall serve the purpose to cover up any leakage as also the gap between the two percentage of oil gain noted by the AO. Resultantly, part relief is granted thus this ground may be treated as partly allowed. 8. Ground No.3 reads as under:- 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of India-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making disallowance of Rs.3,23,196/- on account of credit balance of NCCD (CENVAT) being written off. 8.1. It was noted by the AO that for the year under consideration an amount of ....