2013 (5) TMI 856

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... This appeal filed at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.01.2012 passed by the CIT(A)-22, Mumbai and it pertains to A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The following ground was urged by the assessee before us: - "1. The claim for balance additional depreciation of Rs. 7,41,231/- u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of machinery which was acquired in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9-10, which is the year under consideration. The AO as well as the CIT(A) were of the opinion that the assessee is not entitled to claim balance 50% depreciation in the subsequent year under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The case of the assessee was that it is a one time incentive allowed to the assessee under the Act where the object was to encourage establishment of industries and hence balance....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he first year: - i. DCIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. 139 ITD 628 (Del) ii. ACIT vs. Sil Investment Ltd. 54 SOT 54 (Del) 5. Delhi Bench of the Tribunal observed that there is no restriction on allowing balance of one time incentive in the subsequent year if the provisions are constructed reasonably, liberally and purposive. One has to notice that additional benefit was intended to give impetus to....