Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

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

2018 (5) TMI 355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eafter "the 1961 Act"] read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, in the facts and circumstances? (ii) Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that the transactions between the assessee and its Associated Enterprise (AE) had to be disregarded for the purpose of Arm's Length Price (ALP) determination under Section 92C of the 1961 Act?" 2. The third question urged by the assessee is with respect to the interpretation of Section 32(1)(iia). This is the compulsory allowance of the claim of additional depreciation amounting to Rs.538,66,55,780/- under Section 32 (iia) of the Act holding the same as mandatory. 3. Facts in respect of this issue are that the assessee claimed depreciation amounting to Rs.503.24 crore apart from ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahendra Mills (2000) 243 ITR 56 (SC), has held that "if an assessee does not claim the depreciation and does not furnish particulars for claiming depreciation, as prescribed, depreciation cannot thrust upon him." To remedy the situation flowing from such judgment, the Legislature brought in Explanation 5 to Section 32 (ii) through the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01.04.2002. The Explanation provides that the "... provisions of this sub-section shall apply whether or not the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of depreciation in computing his total income". The effect of this Explanation is that deduction on account of depreciation has to be mandatorily allowe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ef provided u/s 32(1)(iia) is a separate incentive de hors depreciation. 25. A cursory look at clause (iia) divulges that the assessee is entitled to deduction equal to 20% of the actual cost of such machinery or plant, which shall be allowed as a deduction under clause (ii). Contention of the ld. Authorized Representative that the mandate of Explanation 5 does not apply to relief under clause (iia) as the same has been placed under clause (ii), in our view, is far-fetched. It is no doubt clear that Explanation 5 granting mandatory depreciation is placed in clause (ii) of Section 32 (1) of the Act, but when we consider the language of clause (iia) providing further deduction for depreciation @ 20%, it becomes vivid that such further clai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(iia). We, therefore, hold that the Assessing Officer was fully justified in granting additional depreciation amounting to Rs. 538.66 crore under ITA No.1459/Del/2016 clause (iia) read with clause (ii) of Section 32 (1). This ground is not allowed." 4. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel urged that an Explanation must be interpreted having regard to the context, purpose and legislative history. Reliance was placed on M/s. Patel Roadways Ltd. v. MIS. Prasad Trading Co. (AIR 1992 SC 1514) and Mohanlal Hargovinddas v. State of M.P.(AIR 1967 SC 1022) and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bagri Foundation (2012) 344 ITR 193 (Del), to advance this proposition. It was further argued that additional depreciation under Section 32(l)(iia) of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is hereby declared that the provisions of this sub-section shall apply whether or not the assessee has claimed the deduction in respect of depreciation in computing his total income; (iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2005, by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing or in the business of 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) : ............" 6. This court is of opinion that the plain text of the explanation leaves no room for admit....