TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expenses u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act‟). 5. The Assessing Officer dealt with this issue at Page-5 in Para 5 onwards in his order and has given findings at Para 5.4.1 onwards as per the detailed reasons as appearing in the order of the Assessing Officer which is on record, the Assessing Officer made disallowance under Rule 8D @0.5% of average value of investments as per the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) which works out to Rs. 84,79,657/- as per annexure-1. The assessee has already disallowed Rs. 33,52,000/- and therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed remaining amount of Rs. 51,27,657/- u/s.14A of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee ( Rs. 33,52,000/-+ Rs. 51,27,657/-) = Rs. 84,79,657/-. 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee invited our attention to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in ITA No.556/PUN/2015 & ITA No.574/PUN/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 and ITA No.834/PUN/2016 & ITA No.821/PUN/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12 decided on 25.09.2018 wherein at Para 44 of the said order, the Tribunal has given its findings on the issue of disa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(supra.) has held as follows: "45. The issue in grounds of appeal No.9.1 and 9.2 against claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act is similar to grounds of appeal No.8.1 and 8.2 raised in assessment year 2010-11. Following the same parity of reasoning, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act." 12. Both the parties herein agreed, the facts and circumstances in this year are absolutely same as that for assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, maintaining the parity of reasoning since relief granted to the assessee by the Tribunal for assessment year 2011-12, following the same, we allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. Thus, ground No.7 raised in appeal by the assessee is allowed. 13. Ground No.8 raised in appeal by the assessee pertains to the disallowance of additional depreciation. 14. The Assessing Officer dealt with this issue at Page 35, Para-7.2 onwards and has given detailed reasoning which is on record as to why he has disallowed the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee and added back the same to the total income of the assessee. While doing so, the Assessing Officer has referred amendme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch a question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and Another V/s. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 380 ITR 423. The Court, after referring to the statutory provisions, held and observed in Para 8 as under: "8:-The aforesaid two conditions, i.e., the undertaking acquiring new plant and machinery should be a new industrial undertaking, or that it should be claimed in one year, have been done away by substituting clause (iia) with effect from April 1, 2006. The grant of additional depreciation, under the aforesaid provision, is for the benefit of the assessee and with the purpose of encouraging industrialization, by either setting up a new industrial unit or by expanding the existing unit by purchase of new plant and machinery, and putting it to use for the purposes of business. The proviso to clause (ii) of the said section makes it clear that only 50 per cent of the 20 per cent would be allowable, if the new plant and machinery so acquired is out to use for less than 180 days in a financial year. However, it nowhere restricts that the balance 10 per cent would not be allowed to be claimed by the assessee in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, and the deduction under this sub-section in respect of such asset is restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (iia) for that previous year, then, the deduction for the balance fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for such asset under clause (iia) shall be allowed under this sub-section in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of such asset." 8. The third proviso, thus, now recognizes the right of an Assessee to claim the remaining 50% depreciation in subsequent year in a case where machinery and plant being acquired and put to use for less than 180 days in the previous year, the depreciation was restricted to 50%. Such a situation as in the present case, was considered by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Shri T. P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd., 394 ITR 483, the Court referred to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 assessment year, which follows the assessment year, in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days." 9. It could be thus, to seen that the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt., Ltd., (supra) even without the aid of the statutory amendment held that remaining 50% unclaimed depreciation would be available to the Assessee in the succeeding Assessment Year. Now the legislation has amended the provision by adding a proviso which, specifically recognizes the said right. The Madras High Court in Shri T.P.Textiles Pvt. Ltd.,(supra) ruled that such proviso being clarificatory in nature, would apply to pending cases, covering past period also. 10. We have no reason to take view different from two High Courts, examining the situat....