2021 (8) TMI 1341

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. Christopher Abraham and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joseph Markos for parties. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax/Revenue is the appellant. M/s.Apollo Tyres Ltd., Kochi/Assessee is the respondent. The subject appeal is at the instance of Revenue from the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') Cochin Bench in ITA No.616/Coch/2011 dated 20.12.2013. The controversies canvassed in the appeal relate to the Assessment Year 2007-08. 3. The appeal deals with the controversy on availing 50% of depreciation, unavailed under Section 32(1)(iia) in the previous year, whether could be allowed in the subsequent year or not; the correctness of the order of Tribunal in setting aside the disallowance of the balance inves....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vious year 2006-07 and claimed balance 50%, i.e., 10% of 20%, in the Assessment Year 2007-08. The Tribunal held that there is no restriction in the Income Tax Act that balance of one-time-incentive in the form of additional sum of depreciation cannot be availed in the subsequent year. 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee refers to and relies on the judgments in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai v. T P Textiles (P) Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 411 (Madras) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Rittal India (P) Ltd (2016) 66 taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka) for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made to Section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 01.10.2016 supports the ded....