TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading, leasing and maintenance of compressors and pumps. 3. The first issue that arises for our consideration is claim of additional depreciation of plant and machinery. The assessee has installed plant and machinery in the factory premises of the customers of the assessee company such as BHEL-Haridwar, Green Gasses Ltd.-Lucknow, Haldirams Manufacturing Company, Gurgaon, etc. 4. The AO held that the transactions in question are lease transactions, wherein the assessee merely remains the owner of the assets but the actual user of the machinery is the customer at whose premises these machinery is installed. That the primary motive behind the transaction is to earn lease rent/hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Referring to the decision in the case of Bhagawathi Appliances vs ITO 337 ITR 286 in ITA no.100/2000 judgement dt. 4.1.2011 (supra) the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the facts are different for the reason that both Bhagawathi Appliances vs ITO (supra) and CIT-II vs Elcon Fin Lease and Industries P.Ltd. (supra)) were dealing with a case where higher rate of depreciation was claimed on the ground that the assessee was running the same on hire and where as in the case on hand the assessee claimed additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He relied on the following case laws and submitted that the issue is squarely covered in his favour which is upheld by the Hon`ble Supreme Court. &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....distribution of power), a further sum equal to twenty per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii). Provided...................................." A plain reading of the section shows that it stipulates the following conditions, which are to be fulfilled, if the assesee is to be entitled for additional depreciation. a. The new machinery or plant should be acquired and installed after 31.03.2005. b. The assessee should be engaged in the business of manufacturing or production of any article or thing. 9. It is not the case of the revenue that the assessee falls within the proviso to this section. There is no dispute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstalled up to March 31st,2002, should have any operational connectivity to the article or thing that was already being manufactured by the assessee. Therefore, the contention that the setting up of a wind mill has nothing to do with the industry namely manufacture of oil seeds etc. is totally not germane to the specific provision contained in S.32(1)(ii a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 13. Respectfully applying the propositions laid down in these case laws to the facts of this case we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and we dismiss this ground of revenue. 14. Ground no 2 is on the issue of allowing the deduction u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has made donation to Auroville Foundation, under the Ministry of HRD, Govt. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 80G. Nevertheless there is violation of Rule 46A, as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has admitted a Certificate dt. 26th October,2010 given by the Foundation, without giving the AO an opportunity to examine the same. As a consequence we deem it fit and proper to set aside the issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 18. Ground no.5 reads as under. "5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.96,527/- on account of excess interest paid u/s40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 19. After hearing both the parties, we find that the CIT(A) has dealt with the issue at para 19 of h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(ii)(a) of the Act. As both the parties agreed that the issue and facts are same as in the Assessment Year 2007-08, consistent with the view taken therein, we allow the claim of the assessee. 23. Ground no.2 : Ld.Counsel submits that in view of the smallness of the amount, he does not press the same, on the condition that it does not become a precedent. Hence we dismiss this ground as 'not pressed'. 23. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. 24. ITA 5772/Del/2011: This is Revenue's appeal on the following grounds. "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A0 erred in deleting the addition of Rs.22,32,614/- made on account of disallowance of claim of weighted de....