TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1431
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h manufacture? 3. The appellant-assessee is a company, inter alia, engaged in civil and industrial constructions, including construction of IT Parks and Hotels. The appellant-assessee also carries on business of manufacture and sale of ready mix concrete. 4. On or about 30.09.2011, the appellant-assessee filed its Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 returning total income of Rs. 12,51,60,370/-. Subsequently, however on 23.12.2011, a revised return of income was filed showing total income of Rs. 12,50,59,350/-. 5. A notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to which, the authorised representative of the appellant-assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer. 6. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment on 12.03.2014, inter alia, rejecting the claim of the appellant-assessee to additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of machinery used for production of ready mix concrete. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant-assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, being ITA No.32/14-15/A-1. The said appeal was allowed by an order d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in AY 2009-10. Respectfully following the same, the AO is directed to modify the order by deleting the addition of Rs. 62,63,733/-. This ground of appeal is allowed. 9. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed an appeal, being ITA No.829/Mds/2016, before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai, which has given rise to the order dated 8.9.2016 under appeal before us, whereby the appeal of the Revenue has been allowed. 10. The learned Tribunal held as under: 4.5 We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and judicial decisions cited. The assessee is in the business of Civil construction works and has claimed additional depreciation on ready mix concrete as the activity of assessee company cannot be manufacture or production to allow additional depreciation.We perused the order of ld. Assessing Officer and activity of the assessee company engaged in the Business of manufacturing of ready mix concrete and once the raw material is mixed which cannot be reconverted in shape. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. N.C.Budharaja & Company 204 ITR 412 (SC) has held that ready made mixed concrete cannot be in the natur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pril, 1998, owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions shall be allowed.- (i)in the case of assets of an undertaking engaged in generation or generation and distribution of power, such percentage on the actual cost thereof to the assessee as may be prescribed. (ii)in the case of any block of assets, such percentage on the written down value thereof as may be prescribed. Provided ....... (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, transmission or 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 that where an assessee, sets up an undertaking or enterprise for manufacture or production of any article or thing, on or after the 1st day of April, 2015 in any backward area notified by the Central Government in this be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... known by name ready mix concrete and was sold as such in the market. 17. The Assessing Officer, rejected the claim on reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. N.C.Budharaja & Co. and another, reported in [1993] 204 ITR 412 (SC) and also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Builders Association of India v. Union of India and others, reported in [1994] 209 ITR 877 (SC), the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ansal Housing & Constructions Limited, reported in [2010] 320 ITR 420 (Delhi), the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jai Prakash Associates (P) Limited, reported in [2006] 155 Taxmann 392 (Allahabad) and the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mewara Construction, reported in [2002] 253 ITR 58 (MP). 18. The judgment of the Supreme Court in N.C.Budharaja & Co. (supra) is clearly distinguishable, as pre-fabricated piles were bored solely for the purpose of construction of a dam, and not sold in the market. 19. In Builders Association of India (supra), the Supreme Court opined that sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 32A of....