DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM AUTO COMPONENTS PVT LTD., CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1300/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 November 2016AY 1998-993 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue of additional depreciation was identical to a previous case decided by the Tribunal and a Karnataka High Court judgment. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the additional depreciation claimed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning additional depreciation claimed by the assessee. The assessee had claimed additional depreciation for the assessment year 2011-12, having received it in the previous year.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to claim additional depreciation in the current year when it was already granted in the previous year, in the absence of specific carry-forward provisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(1)(iia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 03.10.2016Pronounced: 25.11.2016

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 15, Chennai, dated 09.02.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2011-12.

2.

Shri A.V. Sreekanth, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is additional depreciation claimed by the assessee under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee was granted 10% additional depreciation during the assessment year 2010-11 and another 10% was claimed by the assessee during the year under consideration. In the absence of any provision to carry forward the balance depreciation in the Income-tax Act, according to the Ld. D.R., the assessee is not entitled to additional depreciation during the year under consideration.

3.

We have heard Sh. Saroj Kumar Parida, the Ld.counsel for the assessee also. The issue of additional depreciation was considered by this Tribunal in Meenakshi (India) Ltd. v. ACIT in dated 07.04.2016. After referring to the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 423, an identical claim was allowed by this Tribunal.

Since the issue is identical as in the case before Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. In fact, the CIT(Appeals) has allowed the claim of the assessee by relying on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In view of the above, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is confirmed.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 25th November, 2016 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 32(1)(iia)

All 553 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32(1)(iia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →