×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh (in short ‘CIT(A)’ dated 29.9.2017 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax At, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’).
2. Ground No.1 and 4 raised by the assessee are general in nature and need no adjudication.
3. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee reads as under:
“2. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the action of Ld. AO, whereby he erred in not allowing additional depreciation allowance of Rs.57,597/- u/s 32(l)(iia) of the Income Tax Act on custom duty pay 4. In the above ground the assessee has challenged the disallowance of claim of additional depreciation u/ 32(1)(iia) of the Act on the plant and machinery purchased by it.
5. Brief facts relating to the issue are that during the assessment proceedings the A.O. noted that the assessee had claimed custom duty as expenditure in its Profit & Loss Account. On being confronted with the same, the assessee admitted to its mistake and stated that it was paid actually on the import of machinery purchased during the year and was to be capitalized with the cost of machinery. The assessee claimed depreciation on the same The A.O. after considering the documents submitted by the assessee found that the same were dated 29.10.2012, accordingly he allowed depreciation at half the allowable rate i.e. @ 7.5%. During the appellate proceedings the assessee claimed additional depreciation allowance of Rs.57,597/- u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The same were denied by the Ld.CIT(A) stating that the assessee had not brought on record whether the requisite conditions for grant of additional depreciation were met or not.
6. Before us, the Ld. counsel for assessee contended that it was submitted to the CIT(A) that the additional depreciation on additions made to plant and machinery had been claimed by the assessee and was allowed by the A.O. also and, therefore, having found the assessee eligible to claim additionaldepreciation on the plant and machinery purchased during the year, there was no question of verifying the compliances with the requisite conditions for claiming additional depreciation on the custom duty component of the plant and machinery purchased during the year.
7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the CIT(A).
8. We have heard the rival contentions and we find merit in the contention of the Ld. counsel for assessee. It is not disputed that the custom duty on which the assessee is claiming additional depreciation was related to assets which were purchased during the year. It is also an uncontroverted fact that the plant and machinery purchased during the year has been allowed additional depreciation by the A.O. In thelight of these facts when the custom duty relates to the same plant and machinery on which additional depreciation has also been allowed we agree with the Ld. counsel for assessee that there is no need and there remains no reason to verify whether the requisite conditions for grant of additional depreciation have been made by the assessee since the same already stands verified with respect to the plant and machinery to which they relate and on which the claim of additional depreciation has already been allowed by the A.O. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) in this regard and allow the claim of the assessee of additional depreciation of Rs.57,597/-. Ground of appeal No.2, therefore, stands allowed.
9. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee reads as under: