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

....4, 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. Since the issues are common, all the appeals we....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ustified 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 take up the appeal for A.Y. 2012-13. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company had filed its original return of income for AY ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds 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 reliance has been placed on the order for AY 2009-10 dated 22.08.2023 of the Hon'ble Tribunal, which is reproduced as under: "The sa....