2021 (7) TMI 1123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch are used for diagnostic and report making at central facility whereas the appellant has major laboratories in Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and Bangalore where pathological testing and diagnostic are being carried on. Therefore, the plants and machinery used in laboratories at different stations and at collection centers are also eligible for additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) of I.T. Act 2. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by making the disallowance of additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) in respect of plant and machinery used in collection centers on the ground that collection centers do not produce any article or things but only collect sample and therefore in the nature of office premises. However, the assets used at collection centers to store the blood samples are necessary for their business without which the diagnostic and report making would not happen. Accordingly, plants and machinery used at collection centers are eligible for additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact in disallowing the claim of additional depreciation on UPS, refrigerator, air condition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... year. The additional depreciation so claimed in a stated hereinabove was Rs. 2,333,715. Assessee also submitted that it has been claiming such additional depreciation in the earlier assessment year also and there is been no disallowance on this account. Assessee also explained the provisions of Section 32 (1) (iia) of the act and relied upon the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in CIT versus Suresh Amin family trust (2007) 158 taxmann 105 Gujarat/288 ITR 101 (Gujarat). The assessee also relied upon the decision of the coordinate bench in 81 taxman 109 (Ahd). Thus the assessee submitted that the claim of the assessee is also allowed in earlier years and there is been no case for any disallowance on this account. It was stated that there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The ld. AO examined the claim of the assessee and disallowed the additional depreciation for the following reasons:- a. That the assessee has not invested in the industrial undertaking as it is engaged in the business of providing referral service and diagnostic services. b. The work done in pathological laboratory cannot be put at bar to an industrial unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....received dividend of Rs. 4,18,25,082/- and share of profit from partnership firm of Rs. 21,03,235/- resulting into an exempt income of Rs. 4,39,28,370/-. Assessee submitted that the working of disallowance of Rs. 24,19,116/- is in accordance with Rule 8D. The ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. AO to consider the submission of the appellant and recomputed the disallowance u/s. 14A in accordance with law. However, assessee is aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A) with respect to the restriction of the additional depreciation and has preferred this appeal on the solitary issue. 10. The ld. AR submitted that claim of additional depreciation has been allowed to the assessee in Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12. Therefore, by placing reliance on the assessment order passed in those year he submitted that when the ld. AO himself has allowed it for the earlier years it cannot be disallowed for this year. He relied on the Principles of consistency. He further relied upon the decision of the CIT Vs. VTM Ltd. 319 ITR 336, decision of ITAT Bangalore in Texas Instrument Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Additional CIT, ITA Nos. 144 and 169/Bang/2014, DCIT Vs. Bengal Beverages ITA No. 1218/Kol/2015 dated 06.10.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessee is entitled for additional depreciation on machinery installed at diagnostic and report making central facilities. We find that the collection centers are also integral part of the whole process of the business of diagnostic and report making central facilities and therefore there is no reason that additional depreciation on those facilities should not be allowed to the assessee when revenue has already accepted the claim that assessee is entitled to additional depreciation on the assets installed by it. The past assessment record also stated to be acceptance of this claim of assessee which is not negated by revenue. In view of this solitary ground raised by the assessee is allowed and the learned assessing officer is directed to grant claim of additional depreciation of Rs. 2,333,715/- to the assessee which was restricted by the learned CIT - A. Accordingly ground number 1 - 3 of the appeal are allowed. 13. Coming to the first additional ground raised he submitted that the appellant company (earlier known as 'Pathnet India Private Limited') underwent a merger with four companies w.e.f. 01st April, 2006 pursuant to orders dated 19.12.2008 of Hon'ble Delhi Cour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....find that the assessee has raised an additional ground for which the facts are available on the record. We therefore admit the same. On the merits of the claim of the assessee, we find that assessee is eligible for the tax credit of the income, which is been included in the return of income of the merged entities. Therefore, we direct the assessee to approach the assessing officer with the requisite claim, the AO is directed to verify the same and grant the credit in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed with above direction. 17. With respect to the additional ground for the deduction of education cess paid by the assessee on the total income, we find that this ground of appeal can be admitted, as there are no fresh facts required to be investigated. The requisite facts are already on record. Hence, we admit the same. 18. On the merits of the claim the learned authorized representative submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of Sesa Goa Ltd. versus joint Commissioner of income tax 423 ITR 426 and the host of the other decisions. ....