TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1031
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rescribed under the law and thus, in the interests 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 ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecting 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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Deputy Commissioner erred by disallowing the assessee company's claim of Rs. 262.22 lakhs being the balance additional depreciation under the category 'Plant & Machinery' and 'Energy saving devices' on the assets added during the second half of the previous assessment 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pported by the following judgments: a) Honourable Karnataka High Court in CIT & ACIT vs. M/s Rittal India Pvt. Ltd [ITA No.590 of 2015] b) Honourable Madras Tribunal in M/s Automotive Coaches & Components Ltd. vs. DCIT, Chennai [ITA No.1789/Mds/2014] c) Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1955 SC 830; d) CIT v. National Taj Traders, 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 jurisdicti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income is treated as Business Income of those persons and will be assessed to tax in their respective jurisdiction. We would like to bring to your kind attention that the provisions of Section 195 relating to TDS will apply only when the payments are chargeable to Income tax in India, as per the provisions of the law. We also invite your attention to Circular 786 of 2000 and Circular No.23 dated 23.07.1969, wherein it is clearly stated that the Commission paid to 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 De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e AO and submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) have erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO in respect of grant of 50% additional depreciation on machinery installed for less than 180 days in the previous year, disallowance of depreciation on brand value and disallowance of commission on export u/s. 40(a)(i) on account of non-deduction of TDS. Further, the Ld.DR reiterated the grounds of appeal filed and prayed for setting the order of the Ld.CIT(A) by allowing the appeal of the Revenue. 8. Per contra, the Ld.AR submitted that the first issue raised 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2015-16, on appeal which was held in favour of the assessee by deleting the disallowance by the Ld.CIT(A) in the respective assessment years. We note that the Revenue has not preferred any further appeal on the same issue. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, following the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) for the earlier assessment years, 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. 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 submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver, the allocated CSR amount paid to the institutions which are approved u/s. 80G of the Act is eligible for deduction u/s. 80G of the Act while computing the total income. In support of the claim of the assessee the Ld.AR relied on the order the Tribunal in the case of Source How India P Ltd., in ITA No.2454/CHNY/2024 dated 10.12.2024, 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. Hence, the ld.AR prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(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 foll....