2026 (8) TMI 213

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate Mr. Manish Shah for the respondent-assessee. 2. By these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the appellant-revenue has proposed the following questions of law arising out of common order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Ahmedabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 1648/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2018-19 and ITA No. 1588/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2016-17: "[A] "Whether, given the facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with the law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in allowing deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the assessee failed to furnish necessary documentary evidences to prove that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssued on 17.7.2016. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that interest and dividend income on which deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was claimed, was required to be disallowed. It was further observed that additional depreciation claimed for addition in new machinery in preceding year to the tune of Rs. 8,31,15,592/- was also required to be disallowed. The Assessing Officer further disallowed the additional depreciation claim on Milk Cans and equipment amounting to Rs. 1,07,64,866/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short 'CIT(A)']. The CIT(A) taking adoption from the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iew of the above, when the decision of the learned Tribunal in the case of Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers Union (supra) upon which, the learned Tribunal has relied upon, has been confirmed by this Court. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. Under the circumstances, proposed question A is answered against the Revenue. 4.0. Now, so far as proposed question no. B i.e. whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowances of Rs. 1,42,19,515/ under Section 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act is concerned, it is required to be noted that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itional depreciation on milk cans on the ground that the milk cans are for collecting and storage purposes and being movable assets are not installed and, therefore, cannot be treated as plants in view of the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the Assessing Officer has himself treated the milk cans as plants and allowed normal depreciation at the rate of 15% and has, accordingly, held that once the Assessing Officer has himself considered milk cans as plants, additional depreciation cannot be disallowed if other conditions are satisfied. The Tribunal, after considering the definition of "plant" as contemplated under section 43(3) of the Act, has found that milk cans are plant as per the....