2025 (6) TMI 1933

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....012-13, 2013-14 and 2015-16 dated 14.06.2024, 16.05.2024 and 17.05.2024 respectively, which have been passed against the assessment orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act, dated 16.11.2018, 29.11.2028 and 19.05.2022, respectively. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeals are barred by limitation by 91, 120 and 120 days, respectively. At the time of hearing, the Ld. DR submitted the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeals within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 1.2. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the grounds of appeal." AY 2015-16: "1. That on the facts of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is not justified in allowing 30% depreciation on Moulds ignoring the fact that the assessee is not engaged in manufacturing of plastic and or rubber products. 2. That the CIT(A) is unjustified in not appreciating the facts that the assessee is not entitled to enhanced depreciation @ 30% on Mould used by third parties for manufacturing of electronics and electrical products electronic medical equipment, development of embedded software and services. 3. That the appellants craves leave to add any new ground and or alter any of the grounds before or during the course of appellate proceedings." 3. We will first tak....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le 5A of the IT Rules 1962. The AO therefore restricted depreciation @ 15% available for general Plant and Machinery. In this case the moulds are owned by the appellant and are provided to vendors to meet its plastic requirements. These vendors work exclusively for Philips India. The Ld. AO is of the opinion that depreciation @ 30% is only for rubber and plastic good factories. Since the appellant does not own these factories, it is not eligible for depreciation @ 30%. It was informed to us that in the AY 2009-10 this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and which has also been reproduced at page 33 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Our attention was drawn to para 1.1 3rd sub-para on page 33 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in which....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Hence ground No. 1 of the Revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed. 6. Since the facts of the case are materially same, we, therefore respectfully following the decision mentioned above, set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct Ld. AO to allow the depreciation @ 30%. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of the appellant for A Y. 2009-10, this ground is decided in favour of the appellant." 6. Since similar is the case in the other assessment years, the Ld. AR requested that no interference was called for in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld. AO and requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(....