CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited

380 ITR 423High Court2016#869 most cited

What is CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited authority for?

Additional depreciation is allowable under section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery or plant even when put to use for less than 180 days, with the unabsorbed balance available for claim in the subsequent year.

121

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rittal India · Section 32(1)(iia) · additional depreciation · 180 days rule · put to use · half depreciation · subsequent year claim · unabsorbed depreciation · new plant and machinery · Section 32

Also reported as

66 Taxmann.com 4

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 32(1)(iia)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 250Section 43(5)

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)(iia)additional depreciationsection 32(1)(ii)abatement of assessmentclarificatory amendmentsection 32(1)put to usesection 80hhblock of assetssection 32block periodsection 153a(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Hinduja Foundries Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2690/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘सी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member I.T.A. Nos. 2690, 2691, 2692 and 2693/Mds/2017 Assessment Years:2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Vs. [Merged with M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.] Room No. 512, 5th Floor, Wanaparthy Kathivakkam High Road, Block, 121, M.G. Road, Ennore, Chennai 600 057. Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AAACE…

Asst CIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tcpl Packaging Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5403/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri A.L. Saini

For Appellant: Shri V. VidyadharFor Respondent: Shri Dinkle Hariya
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…n which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days.” 8. As can be seen from the above decision the Hon'ble Madras High Court, following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (380 ITR 423) and also considering the amendment brought in by way of proviso to section 32(1) wherein it has been specifically stated that 50% of additional depreciation which was not allowed in the preceding assessment year shall be allowed in the subsequent assessment year, concluded that the assessee is entitled for additional 50% depreciation in the asse…

Asst CIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tcpl Packaging Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5402/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri A.L. Saini

For Appellant: Shri V. VidyadharFor Respondent: Shri Dinkle Hariya
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…n which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days.” 8. As can be seen from the above decision the Hon'ble Madras High Court, following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (380 ITR 423) and also considering the amendment brought in by way of proviso to section 32(1) wherein it has been specifically stated that 50% of additional depreciation which was not allowed in the preceding assessment year shall be allowed in the subsequent assessment year, concluded that the assessee is entitled for additional 50% depreciation in the asse…

DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Freins Engineering Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2188/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. jagannathan, C.A
Section 32(1)(iia)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘डी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 2147 and 2188/Mds/2017 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Freins Engineering Limited, Income Tax, Vs. No. B-7, First Main Road, Industrial Corporate Circle 2(1), Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 600 058. Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AAACF0439R] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, J…

DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Freins Engineering Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2147/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. jagannathan, C.A
Section 32(1)(iia)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘डी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 2147 and 2188/Mds/2017 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Freins Engineering Limited, Income Tax, Vs. No. B-7, First Main Road, Industrial Corporate Circle 2(1), Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 600 058. Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AAACF0439R] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, J…

DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Hindusthan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1601/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1410/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1601 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata -Vs- Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Shri Vinod Sharma, Ca For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

…calculate the amount of depreciation on written down value (WDV). 5.The Ld AR before us submits that the case in hand is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Anr Vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd reported in (2016) 380 ITR 423(Karn). 6.The Ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the authorities’ below. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs Rittal India Private Ltd (supra). The facts of the case therein are that the assessee b…

Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1410/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1410/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1601 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata -Vs- Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Shri Vinod Sharma, Ca For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

…calculate the amount of depreciation on written down value (WDV). 5.The Ld AR before us submits that the case in hand is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Anr Vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd reported in (2016) 380 ITR 423(Karn). 6.The Ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the authorities’ below. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs Rittal India Private Ltd (supra). The facts of the case therein are that the assessee b…

DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Hindustan Gums & Chemical Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 752/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: S/Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. & Sanjay Bhaumik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…alculate the amount of depreciation on written down value (WDV). 5. The Ld AR before us submits that the case in hand is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Anr Vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd reported in (2016) 380 ITR 423(Karn). 6. The Ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the authorities’ below. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs Rittal India Private Ltd (supra). The facts of the case therein are that the assessee…

Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 462/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: S/Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. & Sanjay Bhaumik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…alculate the amount of depreciation on written down value (WDV). 5. The Ld AR before us submits that the case in hand is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Anr Vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd reported in (2016) 380 ITR 423(Karn). 6. The Ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the authorities’ below. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs Rittal India Private Ltd (supra). The facts of the case therein are that the assessee…

Sri Y C Kallinatha, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 728/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT
Section 10ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 36(1)

…ssessee and confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. Page 4 of 8 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., 380 ITR 423 wherein the Hon’ble High Court, in the identical facts and circumstances, has held that this provision is a beneficial legislation and should be given liberal interpretation. Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the decision of this Tribunal in allowing the additional depreciation being onetime benefit to encourage the industrialization…

Aarti Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 6783/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No. 6783-84/Mum/2014,िनधा" रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 आयकर िनधा"रण आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा" िनधा" रण रण वष" वष" Aarti Drugs Limited Addl. Cit, Range-6(1) Plot No.109, ‘D’ 3Rd Floor, Mahendra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Vs. Indl Estate.Sion(E), Mumbai-400 022. Pan: Aaaca 4410 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 10 .02.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act)

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 10Section 14Section 14ASection 254(1)

…garding additional depreciation were not considered by FAA while deciding the appeal,that the assessee was entitled to claim 50% of the additional depreciation i.e. 10% during the year under consideration.He relied upon the case of Rittal India Pvt. Ltd.-No.1(380 ITR 423). The DR supported the order of the FAA. 3.4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the FAA had disallowed the claim made by the assessee u/s.32(1)(iia),that she was of the opinion that it was available for one year only i.e.in initial year,that the assessee had claimed 50% of the deduction as the mac…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Harita Seating Systems Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3172/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3172/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Harita Seating Systems Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Corporate Circle – 2(2), Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 006. Pan : Aaach 2492 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Durai Pandian, JCITFor Respondent: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…sel, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee. However, the CIT(Appeals) by placing reliance on the order of Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in Devi Polymers Limited and judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 423, allowed the claim of the assessee. 9. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The CIT(Appeals) by placing reliance on the judgment of Karnataka High 6 I.T.A. No.3172/Mds/16 Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) allowed the claim of the assessee with regard to additional…

Rashtriya Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3478/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Krishna MurtHy, DR
Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Rashtriya Chemical & Fertilisers Vs. CIT LTU Ltd., Priyadarshini Eastern Express Centre 1 Highwaysion, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400022 Mumbai – 400005 PAN : AACR2831H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Niraj Sheth, AR Revenue by: Shri K. Krishna MurtHy, DR Date of Hearing : 07/12/2016 Date of pronouncement: 16/01/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2009-1…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Aztec Auto Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for both the 8

ITA 2752/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2751 & 2752/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010 & 2012-2013. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Aztec Auto Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. 88, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle 1(1) Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai 600 098. [Pan Aaaca 6238K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.A
Section 32(1)(iia)

…epresentative once again relied 6. on the very same decisions on which assessee had banked before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd 380 ITR 423. According to him, the decision of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was in accordance with law. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 7. orders of the authorities below. In so far as claim of carry forward of additional depreciation to the extent it could not be allowed in earlier year due to use lesser than 180 d…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Aztec Auto Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for both the 8

ITA 2751/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2751 & 2752/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010 & 2012-2013. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Aztec Auto Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. 88, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle 1(1) Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai 600 098. [Pan Aaaca 6238K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.A
Section 32(1)(iia)

…epresentative once again relied 6. on the very same decisions on which assessee had banked before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd 380 ITR 423. According to him, the decision of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was in accordance with law. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 7. orders of the authorities below. In so far as claim of carry forward of additional depreciation to the extent it could not be allowed in earlier year due to use lesser than 180 d…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Auto Components Pvt Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1300/CHNY/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1300/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Sundaram Auto Components Income Tax, V. Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle 6(2), No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai - 600 034. Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacs 7027 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: Sh. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate
Section 32(1)(iia)

…. 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 I.T.A. No. 206/Mds/2016 dated 07.04.2016. After referring to the (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 3 I.T.A. No.1300/Mds/16 CIT(Appeals) has allowed the claim of the assessee by relying…

C.R.I.Pumps Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 7

ITA 1049/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…authorities submitted that additional depreciation was available for every year till the value of the asset ITA No. 1049/Mds/2016. :- 3 -: became Nil. According to him, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. 380 ITR 423 had held that balance of additional depreciation which could not be claimed in particular assessment year due to use less than 180 days could be allowed in subsequent years. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly 5. supported the orders of the authorities below We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 6. orders of…

M.M.Metacraft Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 144/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2016AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…s made before the authorities below and further submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd, reported in (2016) 380 ITR 423 (Ker.). The reliance was also placed on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Benches, New Delhi, in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Cosmo Films reported at 139 ITR 628 and the ITAT Calcutta in the case of Universal Cables Ltd. Vs DCIT reported at 68 SOT 307. 5. It was further submitted that the legislature made the amendment in the A…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohan Milk LIne Pvt Ltd

ITTA/166/2014HC Telangana06 Apr 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Asst. C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Rittal India Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 583/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.Manojkumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 801JSection 80JSection 880J

…ovisions of sec.32 w.e.f. 1/4/2006. The claim for additional depreciation was disallowed by the AO on the ground that additional depreciation was allowable only in the year in which the asset was put to use. We find that in the assessee’s own case reported in 380 ITR 423 the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that the proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of sec.32 makes it clear that only 50% of 20% of additional depreciation would be allowable if the new plan machinery so acquired is put to use for less than 180 days during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. However, it n…