TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 310
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... items. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 on 31-12-2006 showing total income at Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 23-12- 2009 and the total income before set off of carry forward losses was determined at Rs. 92,19,134/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 04-08-20011 allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and has filed the following grounds: " 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CTT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 78,91,350/- by allowi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....30% on the ground that it was involved in the manufacturing of plastic goods and was therefore eligible for higher depreciation, AO on the other hand was of the view that the final products of the company are electrical products and part of which comprises of plastic and other part being electrical circuits made up of copper and aluminum. He was of the view that the benefit of 30% depreciation is available only to those industries which are manufacturing exclusive plastic products. He also noticed that on identical facts for A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06, the AO had restricted the claim of depreciation on dies and moulds to the rate of depreciation applicable to plant and machinery. He accordingly, relying on the assessment order for A.Y. 2004-0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed depreciation at 30% in A.Y. 2001-02 to 2004-05. He also placed on record the copy of the aforesaid order. He thus supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is allowability of higher depreciation dies and moulds. We find that Ld. CIT(A) had decided the issue in favour of Assessee by relying on the Hon'ble Tribunal's decision in Assessee's own case for A.Y. 2001-02. We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in A.Y. 2001-02 in ITA No. 488/Ahd/2007 order dated 4th October, 2007 had decided the issue by holding as under:- "8. Before me, the appellant has reiterated what had been submitted before the AO. In addition, it has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c., the assessee is eligible for deduction at higher rate of depreciation i.e. 40%". Following the said order, it is held that the appellant is entitled to depreciation i.e. 40% for the moulds. The Assessing Officer is directed to recomputed the depreciation on moulds accordingly." 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused material available on record. In the given facts and circumstances, Madras High Court's judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Falcon Wires P. Ltd., (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case, in our view, Tribunal Judgment in the case of BPL Refrigeration Ltd. and Kinetic Honda Motor Ltd. (supra) are applicable to the assessee's case, respectfully following them, we uphold order of the CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.2005 (including grace period). Appellant relied upon decisions as under in its support:- - CIT v Sabari Enterprise (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) -CIT v M N Chari (2009) 310 ITR 445 (Kar) -Kuber Hings (P) Ltd ITO (2009) 120 TTJ 284 (Delhi) -Fluid Air (India) Ltd v DCIT (1997) 63 ITD 182 (Mum) -Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd v DCIT (1996) 59 ITD 515 (Mad)/(1996) 56 TTJ (Mad) 662 3.2. I have considered the matter. Since employees' contributions to PF were paid before due date of filing of return, disallowance of Rs. 2,62,184/- is cancelled. Reliance is placed on Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad's decision in ITA No. 2608/Ahd/2008 in the case of Gujarat Containers Ltd in this regard." 10. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenu....