2020 (9) TMI 541

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....009-2010. 3. The appellant / revenue has filed the following substantial questions of law for consideration: '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is eligible to carry forward the unabsorbed additional depreciation as per the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia)? 2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad especially when as per the proviso to Section 32(a)(ii) restricts depreciation allowable to 10% in the year in which the assets was acquired and installed and in the present case the assets was acquired in the 2nd half of the financial year 2007-08 and there being no provisions under the Act permitting the balance to be carry forwarded to be al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessing officer and accordingly, he disallowed the claim and added the same to the total income of the assessee under the head income or professional and established at the total income of Rs. 76,16,945/- 7. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-I CIT(A), Chennai, who by order dated 14.07.2016 allowed the appeal. In doing so, followed the decision of M/s Addison & Company Vs. DCIT in I.T.A.No.2198/Mds/2015 dated 04.03.2016. In this order, the Tribunal noted the decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Brakes India Limited in I.T.A.No.1609/Mds/2010 dated 06.01.2012, which was decided against the assessee. However, the CIT(A) took note of the decision above mentioned and observed that those were rendere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st before the Division Bench of this Court in T.C.A.No.551 of 2013 and the Division Bench noted the decision in Rittal India Limited as well as M.M.Forgings and ultimately, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. In doing so, the Division Bench of this Court distinguished the decision in the case of M.M.Forgings by observing that the said case was not concerned with the issue with regard to right to carry forward the balance additional depreciation and followed the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai Vs. M/s Shri T.P. Textiles Private Limited in TCA No.157 of 2017 dated 06.03.2017, which was decided in favour of the assessee and in which decision, the decision in the case of Rittal India Ltd., was also referred to.....