2021 (3) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....]. Heard both parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal. 1. The Ld.CIT(A) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both on facts and in law by dismissing the appeal. (General Ground ) 2. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee has rightly claimed the additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 37,99,846/- in the year under reference. (Tax effect: Rs. 11,74,152/-) 3. The Ld CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is not eligible for availing additional depreciation vide third proviso to Section 32 (i)(iia) on the reason that unexpired portion of additional depreciation can only....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... depreciation (vide amendment inserted in Finance Bill 2005), not 35% additional depreciation (vide amendment inserted in Finance Bill 2015) and thus is eligible to claim the 50% of the 20% additional depreciation vide second proviso to section 32(i)(iia). 8. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating that the depreciation amounting to Rs. 37,99,846/- which is 50% of the eligible 20% additional depreciation (brought forward from the AY 2014-15) which can be claimed in FY 2015-16 relevant to the year under reference. 9. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the AO passed order u/s 143(3), without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appellant may add, alter or amend....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on u/ s.32(1)(iia) of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of additional depreciation in respect of addition made in the preceding year to the previous year as only 50% of the additional depreciation was claimed on the Assets pu.t to use for less than 180 days in the earlier previous year and the remaining additional depreciation @10% of additions made amounting to Rs. 37,99,846/ - was claimed and allowable u/s.32(1)(iia) of the IT Act, 1961. The above stand is supported by the decisions given in the following cases: Century Enka Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT KOLKATA) reported in 58 taxmann.com 318 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, circle-3(1), New Delhi Vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. Reported in 24 taxmann.com 18....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....portion of the additional depreciation u/ s.32(1)(iia) can be carried forward only from the AY 2016-17. In other words, the unexpired portion of the additional depreciation for the A Y 2016-1 7 can be carried forward and claimed in succeeding A Y 201 7-18. In the present case, therefore no claim of carry forward additional depreciation relevant to the A Y 2015-16 is admissible. Hence the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 3 7,99,846/ - towards additional depreciation claimed. 4.2 During the course of appeal proceedings, with regard to the above ground, the appellant submits as under: "It is eligible for additional depreciation u/ s.32(1)(iia), in respect of additional depreciation in respect of addition made in the....