TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 894
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order passed by the learned CIT(A) allowing the claim of the assessee for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law; "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs. 1,33,96,265/-?" [2.0] The facts leading to the present Tax Appeal in nutshell are as under; [2.1] The assessee was in the business of manufacturing ceramic glaze tiles. The assessee - Company had set up an industrial unit for production of ceramic glaze tiles. The assessee also installed windmill through which the production of electricity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), revenue preferred Appeal before the learned tribunal and by the impugned judgment and order the learned CIT(A), relying upon the decision of the learned tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. Diamines and Chemicals Ltd. in ITA No.409/Ahd/2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. VTM Ltd. reported in [2009] 319 ITR 336 (Mad.), has dismissed the said Appeal. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal, revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the aforesaid question of law. [3.0] Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue has vehemently submitted that in the facts and cir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the Madras High Court in the case of VTM Ltd. (Supra). Making the above submissions, it is requested to admit /allow the present Tax Appeal. [4.0] Heard Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue at length. We have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the Assessing Officer, the learned CIT(A) as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the assessee claimed the additional depreciation of Rs. 1,33,96,265/- at 10% of the cost of the windmill acquired and installed by the assessee. It appears that the assessee - Company set up an industrial unit for production and manufacture of ceramic glaze tiles. The assessee also insta....