Home › Tax Laws › JCIT v. J. K. Cement Ltd. (2019) 69 ITR 26 (SN) (Luck.)(Trib.)

JCIT v. J. K. Cement Ltd. (2019) 69 ITR 26 (SN) (Luck.)(Trib.)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Additional depreciation–S. 32(1)(iia) would not restrain the assessee from claiming the balance of the benefit of additional depreciation in the subsequent assessment year. [S. 32(1)(iia)]

During the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13, assessee claimed residual 50% additional depreciation on the assets installed in the second half of the assessment year 2011-12. Ld. AO disallowed the same. On appeal to CIT (A), CIT (A) allowed the additional depreciation claim of the assessee. Aggrieved by the same, assessee filed an appeal before ITAT.

 

The assessee company claimed additional depreciation on the assets installed in the second half of the assessment year 2011-12. The AO held that additional depreciation is allowed only at 50% on the assets put to use for less than 180 days. He observed that the company wants to claim the residual 50% of the additional depreciation on the assets put to use for less than 180 days in the next assessment year, which is not correct as per provisions of the Act. Finance Act, 2015 has allowed 50% additional depreciation in the next year of put to use effective from 01-04-2015. Since the provision of section 32 of the Act do not provide for carry forward of the residual additional depreciation in the current assessment year, the claim of additional depreciation was rejected. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s claim, following ‘M/s Automotive Coaches & Components Ltd. vs. DCIT’, order dated 12.02.2016, passed by the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1789/Mds/2014, for A.Y. 2008-09, wherein, it was held that if additional depreciation could not be allowed at the rate of 20% during the year in which the machinery was installed, the balance 50% has to be allowed in the subsequent year, and ‘CIT vs. Pittal India (P) Ltd.(2016) 129 DTR 153 (Karn.)(HC) , in which, it was held that the proviso to Section 32 (1)(iia) of the I.T. Act would not restrain the assessee from claiming the balance of the benefit of additional depreciation in the subsequent assessment year. On further appeal the Tribunal observed that there was no decision contrary to the above decisions and hence there was no error in the CIT(A) order. (ITA No. 15/LKW/2018,  dt. 07.12.2018  (AY. 2012-13)