← All Phrases

“additional depreciation”

DepreciationSection 32(1)(iia)Section 32(1)(iia)604 judgments

The decision most relied on for additional depreciation is Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT (196 ITR 188), cited in 289 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on additional depreciation

Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT
196 ITR 188 · 1992 · Supreme Court
289
citing judgments

Provisions in taxing statutes that grant incentives, concessions, or exemptions for promoting economic growth and industrialization must be interpreted liberally and purposively. Any restrictions placed on such provisions should also be construed reasonably to advance their objective, not frustrate it.

CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers
400 ITR 279 · 2018 · Supreme Court
136
citing judgments

A subsidy is classified as a capital receipt if its object is to enable the assessee to set up or expand a new or existing unit. Conversely, it is a revenue receipt if its purpose is to help the assessee run the business more profitably.

CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited
380 ITR 423 · 2016 · High Court
121
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd.
271 ITR 331 · 2004 · Supreme Court
92
citing judgments

Extraction and processing of iron ore constitutes "production" for the purpose of claiming tax benefits like investment allowance under Section 32A and additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia), even if it does not amount to "manufacture".

CIT v. Shri T.P. Textiles (P.) Ltd.
394 ITR 483 · 2017 · High Court
73
citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to claim the balance 10% of additional depreciation in the succeeding assessment year if the new plant and machinery were put to use for less than 180 days in the previous year.

CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd.
321 ITR 477 · 2010 · High Court
62
citing judgments

The court may allow additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery if it is used in the business of any article or thing, even if not directly linked to increasing production capacity.

CIT v. VTM Ltd.
319 ITR 336 · 2009 · High Court
49
citing judgments

An assessee engaged in the manufacture or production of an article or thing is entitled to additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery or plant, such as a windmill for power generation, even if it is not directly used in the primary manufacturing activity.

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
262 ITR 579 · 2003 · High Court
48
citing judgments

For banks, bad debts written off from non-rural advances are not subject to the limitations of the provisos to sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viii), as these provisos apply only to rural advances; section 36(1)(viia) also applies exclusively to rural advances. Additionally, depreciation on investments valued at market price on the balance sheet date is eligible for deduction.

Judgments citing additional depreciation

Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 172/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.172/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aabca7366H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/02/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri B.G. Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. M Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 92C

Analytical studies) on account of absence of Form 3CL before passing the Assessment Order (Form 3CL was subsequently received). B) On disallowance of additional depreciation: 1. The Learned AO erred in facts and circumstances of the case in not deleting the disallowance pertaining to additional depreciation amounting ... entire expenditure as referred in the report of the DSIR. 18. The next issue is regarding the additional depreciation disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The learned AR has submitted that the assessee has claimed additional depreciation in respect of plant & machinery u/s 32(iia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which

Gateway Office Parks Priovate Limitedi, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Cicle-6(1), Chennai

ITA 617/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.617/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2015-16 Gateway Office Parks Private Limited, Block No.A6, Ground Floor, No.16, Gst Road, Perungalathur, Chennai-600 063. [Pan: Aajcs8198P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-6(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri S.Ananthan, Advocate (Virtual). Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit 22.01.2025 19.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/M/250/2022-23/1050825008(1) Dated 16.03.2023 For The Assessment Years 2015-16. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 16.03.2023 Passed By Cit(A), Chennai. 2.0 Ground Of Appeal No.1 Has Been Found To Be General In Nature & Hence Not Worthy Of Any Meritorious Adjudication.

Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, "ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 8(1)-Ltu-2, Chennai vs. M/S. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

specific adjudication and is accordingly dismissed. 8. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue is against the Ld. CIT(A)’s deleting the disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act in relation to pollution control and energy saving equipment’s. According ... which were depreciable at the rate of 40%, did not fall within the definition of ‘plant & machinery’ and therefore it was not eligible for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The AO is noted to have accordingly disallowed the additional depreciation of Rs.13,39,070/- claimed

M/S. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 8(1)-Ltu-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 554/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

specific adjudication and is accordingly dismissed. 8. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue is against the Ld. CIT(A)’s deleting the disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act in relation to pollution control and energy saving equipment’s. According ... which were depreciable at the rate of 40%, did not fall within the definition of ‘plant & machinery’ and therefore it was not eligible for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The AO is noted to have accordingly disallowed the additional depreciation of Rs.13,39,070/- claimed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-3(4), Mumbai vs. Lubrizol India Pvt Ltd, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5955/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassistant Commissioner Of Vs Lubrizol India Pvt Ltd Income-Tax-3(4), Mumbai 9/3, Lubrizol India Private Limited- 5Th Room No.559, Floor, Plant, Thane Belapur Road, Turbhe Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate Naka, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Thane- Mumbai-400 020 400 705 Pan: Aaacl0126H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla & Shri ShreyasFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (SR DR)
Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 80G

circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CITIA) was right in deleting the disallowance made by AO in respect of additional depreciation of Rs. 2,23,91,990/- claimed by the assessee for AY 2016- 17 ignoring the fact that the plant and machinery ... specific needs of transportation and 3 CO 288/Mum/2024 Lubrizol India Pvt Ltd industrial market. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee claimed the additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) amount to Rs.2,23,91,990/- which pertained to the plant & machinery

M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-II, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2379/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 14A

lower authorities denying of the lower authorities denying the he he claim claim claim of of of balance balance balance additional additional additional depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to Rs.15,71,32,419/- on the assets which were put to use in the earlier on the assets ... acquired new plant & The facts as noted are that, the assessee had acquired new plant & machinery in FY 2010-11 which was eligible for additional depreciation @ 11 which was eligible for additional depreciation @ 11 which was eligible for additional depreciation @ 20% in terms of Section

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ntt Global Data Centers Cloud Infrastructure India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4102/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. DR
Section 250

assessee, confirming the decision of the CIT (A) and the ITAT holding that the assessee company is entitled to the investment allowance and additional depreciation. In this judgment of the Karnataka High Court the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 231 ITR 308 was relied upon. Therefore we have

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CC-3(2), Central Range-3, Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point vs. Aarti Durgs Limited, Sion (E)

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3071/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subash &
Section 139Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim 10% additional depreciation in the year under consideration ignoring that there is nothing in the statute which allows carry forward of additional depreciation and thus there cannot be any presumption ... facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim 10% additional depreciation in the year under consideration ignoring that there is nothing in the statute which allows carry forward of additional depreciation and thus there cannot be any presumption

DCIT CC 3(2), Central Range-3, Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point vs. Aarti Durgs Limited, Sion (E)

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3070/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subash &
Section 139Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim 10% additional depreciation in the year under consideration ignoring that there is nothing in the statute which allows carry forward of additional depreciation and thus there cannot be any presumption ... facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim 10% additional depreciation in the year under consideration ignoring that there is nothing in the statute which allows carry forward of additional depreciation and thus there cannot be any presumption

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CC-3(2), Central Range-3, Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point vs. Aarti Durgs Limited, Sion (E)

ITA 3068/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subash &
Section 139Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim 10% additional depreciation in the year under consideration ignoring that there is nothing in the statute which allows carry forward of additional depreciation and thus there cannot be any presumption ... facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim 10% additional depreciation in the year under consideration ignoring that there is nothing in the statute which allows carry forward of additional depreciation and thus there cannot be any presumption

Saiphia Technology Private Limited, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 172/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2015-16 Saiphia Technology Private Nfac Limited, Delhi 1St Floor Ankit Plaza, बनाम/ Kolar Road, Vs. Near Nayapura Bus Stop, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aancs1814Q Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2025

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

made a straightforward submission that the impugned disallowance of Rs. 32,31,505/- is the outcome of non-acceptance of claim of additional depreciation made by assessee in terms of section 32(1)(iia) before PCIT in revision-proceeding and also before AO in the proceeding of fresh assessment ... DCIT-5(1), Bhopal – “JAO”] which the JAO allowed vide assessment-order dated 31.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263. However, identical claim of additional depreciation has not been allowed by present AO (who is faceless) for AY 2015-16 as involved in present case. Ld. AR submitted that when

Shell & Pearl Porcellano Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2851/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.Ta. No.2851/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shell & Pearl Porcellano Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 207, Sarthik-Ii, Ward-4(1)(3), Opp. Rajpath Club, Ahmedabad. S.G Highway, Ahmedabad-380054. [Pan No.Aagcs2593B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Firoj Bodla, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ap Singh, Cit. Dr 16.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 17.01.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Firoj Bodla, ARFor Respondent: Shri AP Singh, CIT. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)

income be deleted now. Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2– 3) The Hon’ble CIT-A erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of additional depreciation on electrification charges which were part of cost of plant & machinery. The disallowance is without any base and justification and hence the same

Star Paper Mills Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1155/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

PCIT that the assessee has put to use the plant and machinery which were depreciable at the rate of 80% and also eligible for additional depreciation at the rate of 20% in consonance with the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The Id. AR submitted before ... less than 180 days. The said item of addition was eligible for depreciation at the rate of 80% under the normal rate beside additional depreciation @ 20% u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Since, the assessee has claimed only 50% of the normal rate in the preceding assessment year, therefore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services(India) Pvt. Ltd., Lajpat Nagar

ITA 3158/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

Exclusion of 07 ITA Nos. 5416 & 5417/Del/2017 along with other cases Profit on sale of fixed assets and investments 6 Claim of 02 additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) in second and subsequent years 7 Claim of 03 deduction for bad debts 8 Carry - forward and adjustment of Capital Loss ... assesee in the case of DCIT Vs.Gloster Jute Mills Ltd.(ITA No.95/Kol/2011) where in it is held that the condition of allowing additional depreciation only in the initial assessment year ceased to exist as and from 01/4/2006. The Department relies on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court

Right Health Platter Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2)2), Chennai

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

ITA 749/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.749/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 V. M/S. Right Health Platter Pvt. Ltd., The Ito, No.63, Dr. Radakrishnan Salai, Corporate Ward-2(2), Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai. [Pan: Aaicg 1708 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 32(1)Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is concerned, section 10B (8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Hinduja National Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 235/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 92C

circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the Investment allowance U/s. 32AC & u/s. 32AD, and excess additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2.The CIT(A) erred in noticing the provisions of Sec. 32AC, Sec.32AD of the Income ... thing. 3.The CIT(A) erred in noticing the provisions of Sec. 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides for additional depreciation @35% for a company engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. 4.The CIT(A) erred in extending the benefit

Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Junnar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 8, Pune

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2433/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Supreme Court in CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC) came across a situation in which the assessee claimed additional depreciation in Form 3AA but the Form was not furnished along with the return of income. Such Form was submitted during the course of assessment ... view of the Hon’ble High Court having the effect that the requirement of filing Form 3AA was a necessary ingredient for claiming additional depreciation, but the timing of filing the Form was a directory requirement, which was fulfilled on filing it even during the course of assessment proceedings

Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Junnar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 8, Pune

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2432/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Supreme Court in CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC) came across a situation in which the assessee claimed additional depreciation in Form 3AA but the Form was not furnished along with the return of income. Such Form was submitted during the course of assessment ... view of the Hon’ble High Court having the effect that the requirement of filing Form 3AA was a necessary ingredient for claiming additional depreciation, but the timing of filing the Form was a directory requirement, which was fulfilled on filing it even during the course of assessment proceedings

Sahajanand Medical Technologies Limited, Surat vs. Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 998/SRT/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 998/Srt/2024 (Ay 2006-07) (Physical Court Hearing) Sahajanand Medical Technologies Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Ltd. Nr. Dabholi Char Rasta, Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Surat, Room बनाम Ved Road, No.602, 6Th Floor, Vs Surat-395 004 Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, [Pan : Aafcs 7694 L] Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made two partial disallowances on the issue of depreciation – first was related to additional depreciation claimed on plant and machinery during the year under consideration. The assessee made addition to the plant and machinery in first half of financial year of Rs.73 ... second half addition of Rs.93,54,217/-. The claim of assessee was that they are eligible for additional depreciation @ 20%, if the plant and machinery is put to use for 180 days or more and @ 10% if put to use for less than 180 days. By mistake, the assessee claimed

Gmw Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1850/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1850/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Gmw Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 885, G.I.D.C. Estate, Income Tax Vs. Makarpura, Vadodara, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara Gurarat - 390010 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg4508Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Surendra Modiani, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr 19/12/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 03/01/2025 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 30.09.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 In The Matter Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 270A

course of assessment, the AO had made addition of Rs.24,38,562/- in respect of EPF & ESI not paid within due date. Further, additional depreciation of Rs.1,95,737/- on machinery ITA No. 1850/Ahd/2024 [GMW Private Limited vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2017-18 - 2 – and penalty charge of Rs.1 ... disclosed in the Tax Audit Report by the assessee itself and, therefore, the penalty was not justified even on merits. Regarding second addition of additional depreciation on purchase of used machinery, the Ld. AR explained that there was a bona-fide mistake by the assessee in this regard and this