TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 940
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,65,56,701/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of claim of accelerated depreciation without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to justify its claim for higher rate of depreciation even on ineligible articles/things against the spirit of Rule 5(2) of the IT Rules, Rs. 1962 and the Department appeal is pending on this issue for the Assessment year 2006-07 with the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. 2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 30,29,737/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of expenditure incurred, inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure or production of any article or thing and such article or thing- (a) is manufactured or produced by using any technology (including any process) or other know-how developed in, or (b) is an article or thing invented in, a laboratory owned or financed by the Government or a laboratory owned by a public sector company or a University or an institution recognized in this behalf by the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Government of India. Such plant or machinery shall be treated as a part of block of assets qualifying for depreciation at the rate of (40) percent of written down value, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:- (i) the right to us such technology (including any process)or othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowed in A ssessment year 2006-07 also. 4 On appeal the ld. CIT(A) allowed higher depreciation on the basis of the order of the Tribunal for Assessment year 2006-07 and other years in ITA No. 107/Chd/2010. 5 Before us, the ld. DR for the revenue strongly relied on the order of Assessing Officer. 6 On the other hand, the ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal vide para 23. He also submitted that it is wrong on the part of the Assessing Officer to state that no evidence was filed. In this regard he referred to page 1 to 3 of the paper book which is a copy of the letter submitted before the Assessing Officer on 11.10.2010 which included a certificate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... plant set up for the manufacture of agricultural tractors, Harvester combines and Industrial forklifts based on technology originally acquired from Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, Durgapur (CMERI) and improvements made thereon bas ed on their own in house R&D efforts. 24 Similarly, a reference was made by the ld. A.R to page 13 of the paper book which contains a letter dated 6.5.2003 whereby Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Delhi had accorded renewal of recognition to the in-house R&D Unit of the assessee, upto 31.3.2006. 25 Having regard to the clear contents of these two letters, emanating from the Ministry as also to Rule 5(2) of the I.T. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessee during the year under consideration had claimed office upkeepment expenses to the tune of Rs. 13.30 lacs, building repair and maintenance expenses to the tune of Rs. 125.9 lacs and machinery repairs to the tune of Rs. 158.44 lacs. The Assessing Officer as per the details at page 4 of the assessment order had disallowed Rs. 2,37,137/- on account of expenditure incurred on purchase of carpets/curtains. The assessee on various dates as detailed at page 4 of the assessment order had purchased carpets/curtains totaling to Rs. 2,37,237/-, which were disallowed by the Assessing Officer being capital in nature. The claim of the assessee is that the aforesaid expenditure was the replacement of earlier asset and was allowable as a reven....