TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1096
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of income declaring income of Rs. 29,30,078/-. Subsequently, assessee on 29.11.2006 revised its return of income and revised the net loss at Rs. 1,08,73,096/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.14.11.2008 and the total loss was determined at Rs. 1,08,73,096/- and the taxable income u/s 115JB was computed at Rs. 48,13,919/-. Subsequently, AO passed order u/s 154 of the Act vide order dt.02.03.2011 wherein he revised the total loss at Rs. 21,60,747/- by withdrawing the claim of additional depreciation of Rs. 87,12,349/- Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.03.03.2016 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chinery may please be allowed. 3. Before us, the Ld.A.R. submitted that he would first like to argue ground No.3 which is with respect to the claim of additional depreciation. 4. AO in the order passed u/s 154 of the Act noticed that assessee had claimed additional depreciation on Plant and Machinery of Rs. 87,12,349/-. He was of the view that the additional depreciation was not allowable in view of the provisions of Sec.32(1)(iia) of the Act. He accordingly held that allowing the claim of depreciation while framing the assessment order was a mistake apparent from the record and accordingly passed order u/s 154 of the Act by disallowing the claim of additional depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Machinery. He further submitted that since the assessee has acquired the new Plant and Machinery and has installed it after 31.03.2015, assessee has fulfilled the required conditions of the sections, so as to qualify for claim of additional depreciation. He further submitted that there was a typographical error in the depreciation schedule that was submitted during the assessment proceedings. He submitted that instead of showing the figure of opening capital investment in Plant and Machinery in the column of addition made during the Financial Year, it was wrongly shown under the column of opening return on value on Plant and Machinery. He therefore submitted that it was not the case of opening return on value on Plant and Machinery but ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ligible for additional depreciation. We find that Ld.CIT(A) while denying the claim of additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) has held that for claiming additional depreciation, assessee has to fulfill the twin conditions of acquisition of Plant and Machinery and its installation after 31.03.2005 and since in the assessee's case these conditions were not satisfied, the claim of depreciation was denied to assessee. We find that an identical issue of claim of additional depreciation was before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. IDMC Limited (supra). The question of law before the Hon'ble High Court was as under : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duction as further depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act, the assessee must have acquired and installed new plant and machinery on which the additional depreciation is claimed after 31.03.2005. It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that in the present case as the plant and machinery was acquired / purchased before 31.03.2005, the assessee is not entitled to the additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the I.T. Act. On the other hand it is the case on behalf of the assessee that the provision of section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act is required to be construed purposefully and literally so as to achieve the object and purpose of the additional depreciation allowable under Section 32(1) (iia) of the IT Act. ...............