TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....61,898/- which were acquired in assessment year 2005-06, whereas the installation of the said plant and machinery was completed on 31.1.2006 i.e. in the year under consideration. The AO denied the claim on the basis that the plant and machinery were acquired in the assessment year 2005-06 i.e. before 31.3.2005. Hence the assessee is not entitled to claim additional depreciation because as per section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act 1961, additional depreciation is allowed in respect of "new plant and machinery installed after 31.3.2005". This disallowance was questioned before the Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee could not succeed in the first appeal. The aggrieved assessee now has raised the issue before the Tribunal. 3. In support of the gro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o make a valid claim of deprecation until and unless the asset is installed and put to use or used by the assessee for the purpose of business or profession. He submitted that the basic intent in bringing the additional depreciation into the ambit of the Act is to rationalize the rates of depreciation and enhancement of additional depreciation on New Machinery and Plant. The Ld. AR submitted that the date of installation is relevant and not the acquisition. He submitted further that liberal interpretation is required to be made while applying the incentive provisions of the Act. The purpose of these incentives provision of the Act is to encourage the industries. He placed reliance on the following decisions :- 1. CIT v. Surama ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his relevant fact that new plants were acquired before 31st March, 2005 but have been installed after 31st March, 2005. For a ready reference we reproduce relevant provision laid down u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act, which reads as " ..............in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft) which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2005 by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing ...................". On the plain reading of these provisions it is obvious and apparent that both the words "acquired" and "installed" are linked with "and" thus requirement of both these words cannot be seen fulfilled even if either of the two is only fulfilled. In o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Surama Tubes (P) Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Ld. AR but during the assessment year 1982-83 involved in that case the provisions laid down u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act in operation were different as tehrein acquisition of new machinery or plant was not given importance and the only requirement was that new machinery or plant has been installed after the 31st day of March 1980 and before 1.4.1965. Since there was no dispute on this fact hence Hon'ble Calcutta High Court was pleased to hold that acquisition of plant or machinery is not material, what is material is the installation of such plant or machinery for claiming additional depreciation allowance. For a ready reference provisions laid down u/s 32(1)(iia) in operation at that time repr....