TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 1010
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....instant appeal: "i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), is justified in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A without appreciating the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp investment Ltd., Reported in (2018) 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC) that as per section 14A(1) of the Act, deduction of that expenditure is not to be allowed which has been incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing the claim of additional depreciation to be carried forward as the assessee has never claimed this carry f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edly derived exempt income from dividends of Rs. 8,86,816/- in the relevant previous year. The CIT(A) has restricted the same to the extent of assessee's exempt income only i.e. Rs. 8,86,616/- going by hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 78 taxmann.com 65 (P&H). 4. The Revenue's only argument during the course of hearing is that the hon'ble Apex Court decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) has already settled the law that such a disallowance relating to an assessee's exempt income has to be made. We do not find any merit in the Revenue's foregoing contention. We make it clear that the issue before us is not that of application but computation of Section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance since....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e brief facts are that the appellant claimed an additional depreciation of Rs. 1,86,81,037/- u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act as carry forward from the previous year. The said additional depreciation was on the machinery installed and put to use in the preceding year which was used less than 180 days and the claim of additional depreciation was restricted to 50% of the normal as per proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Vide order sheet entry the appellant was asked as to furnish the details of the same. The counsel of the appellant replied which was considered but not accepted by the AO and subsequently the carry forward of balance of Rs. 1,86,81,037/- of additional depreciation from A.Y. 2013-14 was rejected. During the assessment pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecause of restriction in the said year has been claimed during this year. The claim was made because this was an incentive given by Hon'ble legislature in the form of additional depreciation, though restricted in a given year, has to be allowed in the next year. The copy of letter dated 18.05.2016 filed with ld Assessing officer regarding this claim is enclosed as Annexure-II. However the ld. Assessing officer totally ignored the claim of the appellant. It is submitted that it is an accepted and admitted fact that appellant acquired and installed new machinery in the preceding year, when the ld. Assessing officer allowed the normal depreciation as well as additional depreciation. But on the machinery which was installed and use....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing officer to further allow additional depreciation of Rs. 7,57,48,356/- as also held by Worthy CIT(A), Ludhiana in Assessment Year 2013-14 in its appellate order in case of Group Company is enclosed as Annexure-12." 6.3 I have carefully considered the appellant's submissions, this issue has already been considered and allowed in the case of the assessee itself in Assessment Year 2013-14 by CIT(A). Copy of which was also placed alongwith written submissions. In the said order, the CIT(A) at Para 8.5 has held as under:- I have carefully considered the appellant's submissions. The appellant had made this claim of additional depreciation through letter dated 14.02.2014. The AO has disallowed this claim on the ground that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee was not to make any fresh claim and had duly furnished and submitted the form for deduction, there was no requirement of filing any revised return. The plea of the Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT (supra) was applicable and deduction was not allowable, was not accepted by the Hon'ble Court. In view of the above said ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Ramco International (supra), we are of the view that the claim of deduction made by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act is to be considered in the present facts and circumstances of the case, even though the assessee had raised said claim b....