Del. HC: Accrual of Cause of Action at a Place is not a Consideration for Determining Jurisdiction  ||  Mad. HC to State: Prevent use of Stickers such as ‘Police’ or ‘GOI’ on Private Vehicles  ||  Bom. HC: Magistrate Needn’t Provide Additional Reasons for Amount of Interim Compensation Awarded  ||  Del. HC: ‘THEOBROMA’ is Free to Expand its Outlets Across the Country  ||  Ker. HC: Detention Order Under KAPPA 2007 must be Confirmed Within 3 Months from Date of Execution  ||  Kar. HC: Not Every False Statement Made in Court Must be Subject to Prosecution  ||  Ker. HC: Roads are Ordinarily Deserted During Night; Likelihood of Causing Death by Accident is Less  ||  Del. HC: Severity of Offence Can’t Disentitle Foreigner to Get Parole for Filing SLP  ||  Cal. HC: Can’t Compound Proceedings u/s 138 NI Act at Revision Stage Without Complainant’s Consent  ||  Bom. HC: There Should be Some Accountability Fixed on Courts in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration    

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (23 Aug 2022)

Additional depreciation of 20% of the cost of new plant and machinery acquired and installed is allowable under Section 32(1)(iia) of IT Act


Direct Taxation

The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of sweets, namkeens and running of restaurants. It filed its return on 30th November, 2015 for AY 2015-16 declaring income of Rs. 1,80,24,57,600. The case was selected for scrutiny. During assessment proceedings, the Learned Assessing Officer ("AO") found that the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs. 1,46,75,508 @ 10% on account of plant & machinery installed during the previous AY. Since the assessee had purchased these assets after 1st October, 2013, it claimed 50% of normal depreciation and 50% on these assets in the immediate preceding AY. The Learned AO required the assessee to justify why additional depreciation @10% in AY 2015-16 has been claimed when the new plant and machinery was neither purchased nor installed during the year.

The explanation of the assessee was not acceptable to the AO. According to him, before amendment from 1st April, 2016 the claim of the assessee on additional depreciation on plant and machinery purchased in AY 2014-15 of Rs. 1,46,75,508 is not allowable at all as per existing provisions of law. He therefore made the impugned disallowance. The assessee filed appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) deleted the impugned disallowance of additional depreciation.

The issue for consideration in present case is whether additional depreciation if claimed @ 10% in one year, being the plant and machinery installed and put to use for the purposes of business for a period of less than 180 days, the balance 10% of the additional depreciation can be claimed in the succeeding year or not.

It is undisputed legal position that additional depreciation of 20% of the cost of new plant and machinery acquired and installed is allowable under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) to an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing over and above the general depreciation allowance. In a case where the assessee claimed only 50% of the depreciation under second proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of IT Act in the year in which the plant and machinery was acquired and put to use for less than 180 days, and the assessee is eligible to claim additional depreciation of 20% on said plant and machinery under Section 32(1)(iia) of IT Act and the assessee claimed only 10% of 20% in the preceding AY as plant and machinery was put to use in the second half of the year. Present Tribunal, therefore endorse the view of the Learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved