← 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

DCIT Cent, Cir-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and the assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1799/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sidhharth Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 32Section 4

facts, provisions and judicial decisions at Para 4.4 to 4.7 of the order and granted the relief.(ii)on the claim of additional depreciation u/sec32(i)(iia) of the Act the Ld. CIT(A) has dealt at Para 6.2 & 6.2.1 of the order and granted relief (iii) on claim ... decided in favour of the assesse and is accordingly treated as Allowed.” 10. The second disputed issue is with respect to claim of additional depreciation, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dealt at page 36 Para 6.2 to 6.8 of the order which is read as under

M/S I & B Seeds Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3415/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, D.R
Section 43(1)

income tax by claiming extra depreciation on enhanced cost. In order to establish aforesaid fact, it has to be established that apart from claiming additional depreciation on enhanced cost, there is other main purpose for acquiring the asset i.e. goodwill in question. The AO in the instant case wrongly invoked

M/S. Himalaya Wellness Company (Formerly Known As the Himalaya Drug Company), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 259/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT -DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 2(11)Section 92C

interest of the Appellant are not justified in law and on facts and circumstances of the case. 3. AS REGARDS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION / ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED: 4.1 The Ld. AO is not justified in disallowing the depreciation / additional depreciation on plant and machinery by re-characterising the assets ... hence, the same are dismissed. Concise Ground 3 and 4 (Corporate Tax Issues) 6. The above grounds deals with the disallowance of depreciation / additional depreciation claimed on plant and machinery amounting to Rs.8,23,073. The AO restricted the depreciation claimed on air conditioners, telephones, office equipments and canteen equipments

M/S. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 147/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 250Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

Appellant regarding allowability of deduction under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act while passing the order. 4. Disallowance of claim for additional depreciation made under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act 4.1 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the additional ... Appellant's submission on being engaged in the business of manufacture, has erred in law and on facts, in denying the claim of additional depreciation merely stating that relevant details in respect of the claim were not furnished. 4.3 The learned CIT (A) has failed to take note

M/S. Sogefi Mnr Filtration India Pvt Lld, Bangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bangaluru

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

ITA 2076/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

adopted in the books of the Assessee after conversion into company and deprecation was claimed on the revalued asset. The Assessee has not claimed additional depreciation of Rs 2,80,450 in terms of section 32 (1) (iia) in the case of new plant and machinery acquired and installed after ... consider the revalued asset for the purposes of depreciation. Hence the assessee is not entitled to depreciation on revalued building. The Assessee had claimed additional depreciation of Rs 2,80,450 in terms of section 32 (1) (iia) for new plant and machinery acquired and installed after 22.7.2008. In support

M/S. Sogefi Mnr Filtration India Pvt Ltd, Bangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2075/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

adopted in the books of the Assessee after conversion into company and deprecation was claimed on the revalued asset. The Assessee has not claimed additional depreciation of Rs 2,80,450 in terms of section 32 (1) (iia) in the case of new plant and machinery acquired and installed after ... consider the revalued asset for the purposes of depreciation. Hence the assessee is not entitled to depreciation on revalued building. The Assessee had claimed additional depreciation of Rs 2,80,450 in terms of section 32 (1) (iia) for new plant and machinery acquired and installed after 22.7.2008. In support

M/S. Sogefi Mnr Filtration India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2074/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

adopted in the books of the Assessee after conversion into company and deprecation was claimed on the revalued asset. The Assessee has not claimed additional depreciation of Rs 2,80,450 in terms of section 32 (1) (iia) in the case of new plant and machinery acquired and installed after ... consider the revalued asset for the purposes of depreciation. Hence the assessee is not entitled to depreciation on revalued building. The Assessee had claimed additional depreciation of Rs 2,80,450 in terms of section 32 (1) (iia) for new plant and machinery acquired and installed after 22.7.2008. In support

M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly

ITA 2870/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2870/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 9Th Floor Prestige Of Income-Tax Thirulakshmi Vs. Circle-3(1)(1) No.11 M.G. Road Bengaluru Bengaluru 560 001 Pan No : Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R. Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Respondent By : D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 16/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(13) For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 92C

provisions u/s. 43(3) read that Rule 5, as well as appendix-1. 43. In our view the assets eligible for additional depreciation must be plant or machinery. Also that such plant or machinery should not be installed in any office premises or residential accommodation. We note that the development ... reported in (1981) 130 ITR 739, we do not IT(TP)A No.2870/Bang/2017 Page 32 of 32 find any infirmity in the disallowance of additional depreciation to assessee. Accordingly Ground no.16 raised by assessee stands dismissed. In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly. Order pronounced

Aarti Industrial Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose and appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3695/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bledcit – 15(1)(1) V. M/S. Arti Industries Ltd., Room No. 470, 4Th Floor 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund-Goregoaon Link Road Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(W), Mumbai -400080 Pan: Aabca2787L Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 145/Mum/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita.No. 3583/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15)] M/S. Arti Industries Ltd., V. Dcit – 15(1)(1) 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor Room No. 470, 4Th Floor Mulund-Goregoaon Link Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund(W), Mumbai -400080 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabca2787L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By : Ms. Shailaja Rai & Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of Rs.11,49,18,592/-, ignoring that section 32(1)\iia) lays down that the benefit of additional depreciation shall be given only on the assets ... respectfully followed, accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 29. With regard to Ground No. 7 which is in respect of Additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act, Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the issue in appeal has been considered

M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 26/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115JSection 80I

maintenance charges and other expenses. 2. The grounds urged by the revenue give rise to the following issues:- a) Relief granted in respect of additional depreciation. b) Relief granted in respect of prior period expenses. c) Deduction allowed u/s 80IA of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short ... shall now take up other individual issues urged in the appeal filed by the revenue. The first issue relates to the disallowance of additional depreciation. The facts are that the assessee had acquired new plant and machinery during the year under consideration and claimed additional depreciation thereon

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 10/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115JSection 80I

maintenance charges and other expenses. 2. The grounds urged by the revenue give rise to the following issues:- a) Relief granted in respect of additional depreciation. b) Relief granted in respect of prior period expenses. c) Deduction allowed u/s 80IA of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short ... shall now take up other individual issues urged in the appeal filed by the revenue. The first issue relates to the disallowance of additional depreciation. The facts are that the assessee had acquired new plant and machinery during the year under consideration and claimed additional depreciation thereon

Bharat Prtroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT Circle-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1602/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

explained the expression installed with reference to section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. While adjudicating on the issue of assessee’s claim of additional depreciation on Pay loader u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act wherein similar expression ‘acquired and installed’ is used in the section, the Tribunal rejected

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Circlr-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1600/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

explained the expression installed with reference to section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. While adjudicating on the issue of assessee’s claim of additional depreciation on Pay loader u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act wherein similar expression ‘acquired and installed’ is used in the section, the Tribunal rejected

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

ITA 4675/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri
Section 14ASection 35

circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing Rs. 1,51,65,251/- on account of balance 10% additional depreciation on additions made in A. Y. 2009-10, without appreciating the facts of the case. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances ... disallowance u/s 14 A of Rs 1,00, ITA No.4675 & 3290/Mum/2015 Asian Paints Ltd; AY 10-11 26,816/–, disallowed the additional depreciation of Rs 1,51,65,251/– and disallowed a trip expenses of ₹ 252,660,686/–. Therefore, total disallowance/addition of ₹ 349,883,448 was made to the returned

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. 24/7 Customer Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2328/BANG/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR), ITAT, BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Shashim Kapila, Advocate

erred in on the ground that AO/TPO has not raised any objection to admission of the additional depreciation as additional evidence. c. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in granting adjustment on depreciation when the taxpayer's profit margin even before the depreciation claim

M/S Hassan Co-Operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd, Hassan vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Hassan

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

ITA 1509/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R
Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80HSection 80ISection 80P(2)(e)

relates to the assessment year 2014-15. The grounds urged by the assessee give rise to the following two issues:- a) Disallowance of additional depreciation claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. b) Disallowance of deduction claimed ... ghee, pedha, etc. The assessment in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration was completed by disallowing part of claim of additional depreciation and also deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(e) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed both the disallowances and hence the assessee

M/S. Mamraj Chuni Lal, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2472/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2472/Del/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

account of difference in Ahrat Commission. (ii) Rs. 4,207/- towards interest. (iii) Disallowance of Rs. 3,12,941/- claimed on account of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia). ITA No. 2472/DEL/2017 [Mamraj Chuni Lal vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 - 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions ... also not just and proper. The penalty is thus, deleted on this score as well. 5. The third issue pertains to additional depreciation. The assessee has made additions in the machinery account of Rs. 15,64,702/- and has claimed additional depreciation of Rs. 3,12,941/-. It transpires that

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6620/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Srf Limited Vs. Acit The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Circle – 1, Vihar, Unit No.236 & 237, Ltu 2Nd Floor, Mayur Place, New Delhi Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Extension, Delhi-110 091 Pan : Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Plant (WPP) and Captive Power Plant (CPP) which was inadvertently left to be claimed while filing the return of income. 22.2 allowance of remaining additional depreciation @10% u/s 32(1)(iia) amounting to Rs.58,14,99,012/-. 22.3 claim of TDS deducted on sale of immovable property amounting to Rs.2 ... respect of its claim. Thus the ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 52. Ground No.22.2 is with respect to claim of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 53. Before us, Learned AR submitted that assessee had not claimed 50% additional depreciation amounting to Rs.58

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2333/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 158A(1)Section 32Section 43B

Because learned AO erred on facts and in law by reducing Normal Deprecation as well as Additional Depreciation by restricting the depreciation allowance to Rs. 19,33,32,748/- as against Rs. 27,77,74,537/- claimed by the appellant in the return of income. 3.2 Because learned AO erred ... facts and in law by refusing to accept the claim for Additional Depreciation on certain items of fixed assets used in the units of the company as per provisions of Section 32(l)(iia)of the Income Tax Act"., is concerned the learned CIT(A) has i. failed to adjudicate

M/S. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1538/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 158A(1)Section 32Section 43B

Because learned AO erred on facts and in law by reducing Normal Deprecation as well as Additional Depreciation by restricting the depreciation allowance to Rs. 19,33,32,748/- as against Rs. 27,77,74,537/- claimed by the appellant in the return of income. 3.2 Because learned AO erred ... facts and in law by refusing to accept the claim for Additional Depreciation on certain items of fixed assets used in the units of the company as per provisions of Section 32(l)(iia)of the Income Tax Act"., is concerned the learned CIT(A) has i. failed to adjudicate