2009 (9) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....depreciation of 25% permissible under Section 32(1) of the Act). In order to get the benefit of additional depreciation, it is necessary for the assessee to show that he has installed in his unit a new machinery as per Section 32(1)(iia). All the three authorities below, namely, the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have held that the appellant-assessee is not entitled to the benefit of additional depreciation as the machinery in question is not new. 2. The stand of the assessee is best reflected in the relevant portion of the written submissions dated 2nd December, 2006 filed by it before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and which is as under: " The main machiner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... held as under: "4.3.4 The next claim of the appellant that reconditioned machinery which had incorporated used and a few new components could be considered as new plant & machinery which was not used prior to appellant either within or outside India. In the absence of further material to show what were the dates on which the machines were manufactured, for what period they were previously used, what were the latest available technical improvements which were incorporated therein and what was the nature and cost of these improvements in relation to the total nature and cost and so on, it is not possible to decide the question whether the machines were 'new' within the meaning of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. It was necessary to find out....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which has also been accepted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it is clear that the machines were old and used machines. In fact, no evidence was filed by the appellant to show as to how the use of mostly old parts for fabricating the machines could convert the machines into new machines by incorporating the latest technical improvements, what was the nature and cost of these improvements and so on and consequently it cannot be said that the machines in question are new machines. The counsel for the respondent has rightly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Cochin Company Versus C.I.T. 67(1968) ITR 199 which has been referred by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his order. T....