Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2017 (4) TMI 511

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xtiles Private Limited. We have made the following observations therein: "6.1. Therefore, the only issue, which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was, whether the additional depreciation, in the sum of Rs. 8,03,233/-, could be claimed by the Assessee in the relevant assessment year, i.e., A.Y.2011-12, in respect of machinery, which was purchased and used for less than 180 days, in the previous year, 2009-10 (i.e., A.Y.2010-11). 7. The Tribunal, relying upon its own judgment in the case of Fresh & Honest Cafe Ltd. V. DCIT, dated 10.08.2016, passed in I.T.A.No.1373/Mds/2016 allowed the appeal of the Assessee. 7.1. Pertinently, in the judgment of the Tribunal, delivered in the case of Fresh & Honest Cafe Ltd. V. DCIT, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of : CIT V. Rittal India (P.) Ltd., [2016] 66 taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka). 7.2. The issue, which arose for consideration before the Tribunal in the Fresh & Honest Cafe Ltd. V. DCIT, was also, whether the Assessee could be allowed balance additional depreciation in the relevant A.Y., following the A.Y., in which, the machinery had been purchased, and put....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... or generation or generation and distribution of power, a further sum equal to twenty per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii). Provided ......" (Emphasis is ours) 8. Pertinently, the Karnataka High Court, in a decision rendered in the case of CIT V. Rittal India (P.) Ltd., [2016] 66 taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka), has interpreted the aforesaid provision, in particular, the proviso incorporated therein. The Karnatake High Court, in the said case, has come to the conclusion that additional depreciation granted under clause (iia) of Section 32(1) of the Act is for the purpose of affording benefits to the Assessees and, to encourage industrialization, either by setting up a new industrial unit, or, by expanding a new industrial unit, by purchasing and installing a new machinery, or, plant, and putting the same to use for the purposes of business. 8.1. The Court, went on to say, that while, the proviso appearing in Section 32(1) restricts the claim of depreciation to 50% of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset referred to in clause (iia), nowhere does it restrict allo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Clause (iia) would be defeated because it provides for 20% deduction which shall be allowed....." 9. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, passed in CIT V. Rittal India (P.) Ltd. 10. According to us, these are provisions included by the Legislature in the Statute to give a fillip to new industries as also to existing industries, which seek to expand its sway, by investing in and making use of new plant and machinery. 10.1. The plain language of Section 32(1)(iia) read along with the relevant proviso would have us come to the conclusion that, there is no limitation in the assessee claiming the balance 10% of additional depreciation in the succeeding assessment year. 10.2. As a matter of fact, with effect from 01.04.2016, the ambiguity, if any, in this regard, in the mind of the Assessing Officer, stands removed by virtue of the Legislature, incorporating in the Statute, the necessary clarificatory amendment. 10.3. The amendment brought in the relevant proviso obtaining in Section 32, reads as follows: ".... 32. (1) ...... Provided also that where an asset....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....prospectively. 11.4. We are, clearly, of the view that the Memorandum, which is sought to be relied upon by the Revenue, only clarifies as to how the unamended provision had to be read all along. 11.5. In any event, in so far as the Court is concerned, it has to go by the plain language of the unamended provision, and then, come to a conclusion in the matter. As alluded to above, our view, is that, upon a plain reading of the unamended provision, it could not be said that the Assessee could not claim balance depreciation in the A.Y., which follows the A.Y., in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days." 4.We would have thought, that this would have put an end to the matter. However, the learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr.Ravikumar seeks to advance the following additional submissions: 4.1. Firstly, that, this Court did not take into account, while passing the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai Vs. M/s.Shri T.P.Textiles Private Limited, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.M.Forgings Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 349 ITR 673. 4.2. Secondly, the Circulars issued b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has also taken the same view. 6.1. We are informed that the Revenue has not assailed the judgment of the Karnataka High Court. 6.2.In our judgment in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai Vs. M/s.Shri T.P.Textiles Private Limited, we have noticed the aforementioned judgment of the Karnataka High Court. 7.In so far as the first submission advanced by Mr.Ravi is concerned, according to us, the same is completely untenable. 7.1. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.M.Forgings Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, did not deal the issue, which is at hand. 7.2. The issue, in hand, is as to whether balance additional depreciation could be carried forward to the year, following the previous year, in which, additional depreciation was claimed. 7.3. The Division Bench in M.M.Forgings case the said case was not concerned with the issue, with which, we are faced, that is, the right to carry forward the balance additional depreciation. Therefore, the judgment is completely distinguishable. 8.The second submission of Mr.Ravi, that Circular no.8 of 2002 dated 27.08.2002 and Circular no.281 dated 29.11.1979, have not been taken note of,....