to download the file. You will need a PDF reader to view the files. You can download one for free from
|
Depreciation is mandatory for Chapter VI-A deduction
The Full Bench was constituted to consider whether for the purposes of allowing deduction under Ch. VI-A, depreciation could be thrust on the assessee even though it had disclaimed the same for purposes of regular assessment. The assessee argued that as in accordance with Mahendra Mills 243 ITR 56 (SC), depreciation was optional and as Expl. 5 to s. 32 came into force only from AY 2002-2003, depreciation could not be thrust even for purposes of Ch. VI-A. HELD, deciding against the assessee:
(i) Mahendra Mills 243 ITR 56 has to be understood in the context in which the said decision was rendered. The decision was rendered in the context of determining total income under Ch. IV and not in the context of determining the deduction under Ch. VIA. Mahendra Mills has not laid down any proposition of law that by disclaiming depreciation, the assessee can claim enhanced deduction allowable under any other provision in the Act.
(ii) The fact that the assessee may have an option to disclaim current depreciation in computing total income under Ch. IV does not mean that the quantum of deduction allowable u/s 80 – IA is dependent upon the assessee claiming or not claiming current depreciation.
(iii) Ch. VI-A is a Code by itself and the special deduction granted therein has to be computed on the gross total income determined after deducting all deductions allowable under ss. 30 to 43D and any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has got to be rejected. By not claiming current depreciation, the assessee seeks to inflate the profit linked incentives provided u/s 80-IA which is not permissible.
See Also: Dabur India Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) where the same view was taken. For a round – up of the law see Depreciation Dreams Dashed.
Related Judgements
- Plastiblends vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
On the question as to whether for the purpose of availing deduction under Ch VI-A of the Act, the gross total income is required to be computed by deducting allowable depreciation even though the assessee had disclaimed the same for the purpose of regular assessment, there is a conflict…
- CCE vs. Shree Rubber Plast (Bombay High Court Full Bench)
In Shruti Colorants a Division Bench held that where there was a delay in filing Appeals u/s 35G of the Central Excise Act (= s. 260A of the IT ACT), the Court had no power to condone the delay by taking recourse to s. 5 of the Limitation Act.
This… - CIT vs. Vardhaman Polytex (P & H High Court) (Full Bench)
(i) In considering whether the interest paid by an assessee on loans raised for acquisition of new asset, before the same was first put to use, is to be added towards the cost of the asset or the same is to be granted as a revenue expenditure for the…
