TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1031
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeals and admit appeals filed by the Revenue for adjudication. 3. The Revenue has filed the following grounds: Grounds for A.Y. 2013-14 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in ITA. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/24-25/1070249758 (1) dated-11.11.2024 for the Assessment year 2013-14 is erroneous in law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that additional depreciation claimed u/s. 32(1)(iia) will be available only for the new assets added during the year and the 2nd proviso restricts the depreciation to 50% in respect of assets used for less than 180 days and there was no provision to allow carry forward for the balance depreciation in the next year. 3. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing the assessee's claim for depreciation on Brand value. 4. The Ld.CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the AO to delete the disallowance of export commission u/s 40(a)(ia) by following the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT without appreciating that the source of income is in India though the overseas commission agents are situated outside India and therefore as per the decision of the Delhi Hig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income is in India though the overseas commission agents are situated outside India and therefore as per the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Havells India Ltd(352 ITR 376), the same is taxable in India and accordingly liable for TDS. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the AO to restrict the disallowance of CSR expenditure without appreciating that the corporates are required to incur the CSR expenditure out of the taxable profits and therefore the same cannot be claimed as a deduction while computing the taxable profits and if this is allowed, it will defeat the very intention of the legislature of involving the corporates in sharing the burden. 5. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing officer be restored. 4. The facts and circumstances and also grounds raised in these three appeals are identical and hence, we will take the facts & grounds from ITA No.139/CHNY/2025 for assessment year 2013-14 and will adjudicate the issue. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business and manufacture....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13. The additional depreciation was claimed at the rate of 10% on the carrying amount i.e., depreciated value of those additions as at the beginning of the current assessment year. The assessee company would like to place its reliance on the memorandum explaining the insertion of Section 32(1)(iia) which reads as below: "With a view to give a boost to the manufacturing sector, it is proposed to allow a deduction of a further sum equal to fifteen percent (presently 20%) of the actual cost of such machinery or plant acquired and installed after 31st day of March, 2002. From the above, the memorandum clearly states that the grant of additional depreciation at 20% is for the benefit of the assessee and with the purpose of encouraging industrialization. However, by virtue of the proviso to clause (iia) of Section 32, only 10% can be claimed in one year, if plant and machinery is put to use for less than 180 days in the said financial year and the balance 10% additional deduction can be availed in the subsequent assessment year, otherwise the very purpose of insertion of Clause (iia) would be defeated because it provides for 20% deduction which shall b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AIR 1980 SC 485 e) KP Varghese v. ITO, AIR 1981 SC 1922 f) Grasim Industries Ltd. Versus DCIT, Mumbai And (Vice-Versa) ITA No.4754/Mum/2004 And ITA No.5978/Mum./2004 g) Kokuyo Camlin Ltd. Versus ACIT-10 (1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, (Mumbai Trib) h) National Aluminium Company Limited Versus ACIT, Corporate Circle-1 (2) and ORS (Cuttack Trib) [ITANos.338/CTK/2017, 39/CТК/2019,01/CTК/2020, 331/CTK/2017, 69/CTK/2019, 65/CTK/2020, Cross Objection Nos.11/CTK/2019 and 02/CTK/2020 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 69/CTК/2019 & 65/CTK/2020)] 4.3.1 The issue of the allowability of additional depreciation has been decided in favour of the appellant by the jurisdictional Tribunal in ITA No. 1741 and 1525/Mds/2014 dated 19.05.2016 for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10. The jurisdictional Madras High Court has also allowed the issue in the assessee's favour in the case of CIT, Chennai v Aztec Auto (P) LTd (2021) 277 Taxmann 273(Madras). Accordingly, the AO is directed to grant additional depreciation brought forward from A.Y. 2012-13. Thus ground no 3 is allowed. (ii) Disallowance of depreciation on brand value:- 4.6 The sixth ground of appeal relates to disallowance of depre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o overseas agents are not chargeable to Tax in India. GE India vs. CIT [327 ITR 456] DCIT vs. M/s. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited (ITAT Chennai) [No.ITA Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255, 1256/Chny/2017, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017], the Honourable ITAT We also place reliance on the following judgements: a) The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Sesa Goa Ltd (Bombay High Court) [ITA No.68 of 2016], b) The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Vedanta Ltd Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16977 /2018. c) Hindustan EPC Company Ltd vs. ACIT (ITA No.7112/Del/2019 And ITA No.6985/Del/2019) (ITAT Delhi) d) Honourable Delhi HC decision in Re: Eon Technology Pvt Ltd [2011] 203 Taxman 266 (Del). e) Honourable Madras High Court in CIT vs. M/s Fluidtherm Technology Private Limited f) Honourable Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Orient Express by placing reliance on its own judgment in CIT vs. Faizan Shoes Private Limited (48 Taxmann.com 48) We would like to draw your kind attention to the recent order of CIT (Appeals) in assessee's own case for AY 2015-16, vide his order in ITA No.193/17-18/CIT-17 dated 23.07.2018, wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Revenue with regard to the claim of 50% of additional depreciation in respect of machinery installed for less than 180 days in the previous year is in accordance with law. He further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aztech Auto P Ltd., reported in 119 Taxmann.com 215 and Brakes India Ltd., vs. DCIT in TCA No.551 of 2013, dated 14.03.2017 and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in this regard and prayed for confirming the order of Ld.CIT(A). 9. We have heard both the parties perused materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We note that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Aztech Auto P Ltd., supra and Brakes India Ltd., supra, and hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court supra, we confirm the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of 50% of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by dismissing the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. 13. Since the issue and facts are identical in assessment years 2014-15 and 2018-19 in ITA Nos.140 & 117/CHNY/2025, taking a consistent view, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of depreciation on brand value and hence, we are inclined to confirm the order of the Ld.CIT(A) by dismissing the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue in these assessment years also. 14. The next issue in respect of the disallowance of commission on export u/s. 40(a)(1) of the Act on account for non-deduction of TDS. The Ld.AR submitted that the commission which has been paid to the parties / persons outside India is not taxable in India. The Ld.AR submitted that the agreement for payment of commission clearly shows that foreign agents rendered agency services in abroad and do not have any Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and hence, not taxable in India u/s. 9(1)(i) of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that this issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee by this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.1741 and 1525/CHNY/2014, order dated 19.05.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue. 19. We have heard both the parties perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that an identical issue has been considered by the coordinate bench of ITAT Chennai in the case of M/s. Source Hov India Private Limited V. DCIT - ITA No.2454/Chny/2024, wherein it has been held that CSR expenditure, made to eligible donee apart from Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund would be eligible to claim the deduction under Section 80G of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Tribunal are as follows: "5. We further find that bouquet of activities that have been permitted under CSR Scheme, inter-alia, include contribution to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund or any other fund set up by the Government for socio economic development. The impugned donation as made by the assessee is one of the prescribed modes of CSR Activities. 6. We also find that Finance Act, 2015 has allowed tax benefits u/s. 80G for donations made to Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund. The amendment and explanatory statement read as under: - Tax benefits for Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund ....