It Is Not Disputed Before Us That The Substantial Questions Of Law Raised In Thisappeal Are Covered By The Decision In The Case Of Dy. Cit v. The Operative Portion Of The Decision Reads As Follows

OD - 8 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/49/2020IA NO: GA/2/2020PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL – 1, KOLKATAVS.RAMKRISHNA FORGING LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAKDate : 27[th] July, 2022 Appearance :Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv., ….for appellantMr. S.M. Surana, Adv.Ms. Swapna Das, Adv.Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv.…for respondent The Court : This appeal filed by revenue under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 13[th] February 2019 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata in I.T.(SS).A. No. 09 (kol) of 2017relating to the A.Y. 2010-2011.. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law forconsideration :- (i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the provision forallowing additional depreciation of remaining 50% is allowable in thesubsequent year i.e. Assessment Year 2010-11, although the statuteallowed the same w.e.f. 01.04.2016 ?allowing additional depreciation of remaining 50% is allowable in thesubsequent year i.e. Assessment Year 2010-11, although the statuteallowed the same w.e.f. 01.04.2016 ? (ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal erred on facts by not appreciating the legalprovisions that disallowance of the claim of the remaining additionalTax Appellate Tribunal erred on facts by not appreciating the legalprovisions that disallowance of the claim of the remaining additional 2 depreciation, pertaining to the machinery purchased in Financial Year2008-2009, in Assessment Year 2010-2011 was rightly made and was asper the extant provisions of law ? (iii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal has erred on facts as well as in law in deleting thedisallowance of 50% of additional depreciation claimed in Assessment year2010-2011, ignoring the fact that the proviso for allowing the remaining50% of allowable additional depreciation in the subsequent assessmentyear, came into the statute with effect from 01.04.2016 and thus, it wasnot there for assessment year 2010-2011 ?Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred on facts as well as in law in deleting thedisallowance of 50% of additional depreciation claimed in Assessment year2010-2011, ignoring the fact that the proviso for allowing the remaining50% of allowable additional depreciation in the subsequent assessmentyear, came into the statute with effect from 01.04.2016 and thus, it wasnot there for assessment year 2010-2011 ? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing Counsel for appellant/revenueand Mr. S.M. Surana, learned Advocate duly assisted by Ms. Swapna Das, learnedAdvocate and Mr. Siddhartha Das, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent. It is not disputed before us that the substantial questions of law raised in thisappeal are covered by the decision in the case of Dy. CIT v. Brakes India Ltd. [IT AppealNo. 1069 (Mds.) of 2010, dated 6.1.2012]. The said decisions was followed in the case ofCommissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. Aztec Auto (P) Ltd.; [2020] 119 taxmann.com215(Madras). In the said decision it was held that where plant and machinery wasacquired by the assessee in the second half of the financial year 2007-2008 was put touse for less than 180 days in that year and, therefore, only 10% of the additionaldepreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) could be allowed on same in that year, balanceadditional depreciation of 10% could be allowed on these assets in the relevantsubsequent year 2009-10. The operative portion of the decision reads as follows:- The operative portion of the decision reads as follows:- 7. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax[Appeals]-I CIT (A), Chennai, who by order dated 14-7-2016 allowed the appeal. Indoing so, followed the decision of Addison & Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [I.T. Appeal No.[Appeals]-I CIT (A), Chennai, who by order dated 14-7-2016 allowed the appeal. Indoing so, followed the decision of Addison & Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [I.T. Appeal No. 3 2198 (Mds.) of 2015, dated 4-3-2016]. In this order, the Tribunal noted thedecision in the case of Dy. CIT v. Brakes India Ltd. [I.T. Appeal No. 1069 (Mds.) of2010, dated 6-1-2021], which was decided against the assessee. However, theCIT(A) took note of the decision above mentioned and observed that those wererendered after considering the decisions in Brakes India Ltd. (supra) and CRIPumps (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 123/58 SOT 154 (Chennai -Trib.) and it was held that additional depreciation to the extent not claimed by theassessee in the earlier year ought to be allowed. 10. Be that as it may, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Brakes India Ltd.v. Dy. CIT [T.C. A. No. 551 of 2013, dated 14-3-2017], was appealed againstbefore the Division Bench of this Court in and the Division Bench noted thedecision in Rittal India Limited as well as M.M. Forgings and ultimately, allowedthe appeal filed by the assessee. In doing so, the Division Bench of this Courtdistinguished the decision in the case of M.M.Forgings Ltd. (supra) by observingthat the said case was not concerned with the issue with regard to right to carryforward the balance additional depreciation and followed the decision in the caseof CIT v. T.P. Textiles(P.) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 411/246 Taxman 324/394ITR 483 (Mad.), which was decided in favour of the assessee and in whichdecision, the decision in the case of Rittal India (P.) Ltd. (supra), was also referredto. 12. In our considered view, the effect of the insertion of the proviso in the year2016, may not have a bearing on the present issue, as during the relevantassessment year 2009-10, the law which has been settled by the Division Benchof this Court is the case of Brakes India Ltd. (supra) against the said decision, therevenue preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.033755/2017 which was dismissed by an order dated 24-9-2018. Thus, thedecision of the Division Bench in the case of Brakes India Ltd. (supra) having been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are bound by the said decision andaccordingly, following the same. Thus following the above decision the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue. Accordingly, GA/2/2020 stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.) Pkd/GH