2016 (5) TMI 639

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e order of Ld.CIT(A) is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2.1. The Ld CIT(A) erred and directed the Assessing Officer to allow additional depreciation as claimed by the assessee on the basis normal depreciation. 2.2 The Learned CIT(A) erred and has failed to know the assessee filed the revised return for the assessment year 15/08/2013(beyond due date). The revised return of income should have been filed before 31/03/2013 for the same should be valid. - 2.3 The Learned CIT(A) erred and that the assessee has claimed additional depreciation "In the case of any new Plant and Machinery (Other than ships and aircrafts) been acquired and installed after 31st March 2005 Production of any article or thing, the sam....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12 and there already existed in block of plant and machinery of Rs. 671,46,33,632/- as on 31.03.2010 and at best the additional depreciation for the Financial Year 2010-11 can at best be restricted to the plant and machinery hired after 31.03.2010. According to the AO, the machineries were acquired and installed during the Financial Year 2009-10 was ready to use and the assessee was eligible for normal additional depreciation only during the financial year 2009-10. Against this, the assessee was in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 4. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee had claimed depreciation on plant and machinery first time during the assessment year 2011-12 and the assessee, though comm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d machinery installed till the date of commencement of production. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. The primary contention of the ld.D.R is that the revised return filed belatedly on 15.08.2013 cannot be considered as the last date for filing the revised return was lapsed by 31.03.2013. According to the ld.D.R, the additional depreciation claimed on plant and machinery in the assessment year under consideration were not new plant and machinery and it was already acquired by the assessee in earlier assessment year as such cannot be considered for additional depreciation in the assessment year 2011-12. On the other hand, ld.A.R relied on the order of CIT(A) and also the following decisions w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on claimed was not acquired by the assessee in the financial year 2010-11 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. It was acquired earlier to the Financial Year 2010-11. The provisions of the section 32(1)(iia) stipulates the granting of additional depreciation on new plant and machinery which has been acquired and installed after 31st day of March, 2005 by assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. The facts brought on record shows that the plant and machinery does not a new plant and machinery acquired in the assessment year under consideration. The first requirement for claiming additional depreciation is that it should be a new plant and machinery. The machinery was new only when it is first p....