Ita/37/2017 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.fci Oen Connections Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM WEDNESDAY, THE 1 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943 ITA NO. 37 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OTHERS 70/2016 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH,ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXKOCHI -1, KOCHI, INCOME TAX OFFICES, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018, BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: M/S.FCI OEN CONNECTORS LTD.TRIPUNITHURA ROAD, THYKOODAM, KOCHI 682 019. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSRI.P.JINISH PAULKUM.MEKHALA M.BENNYSRI.R.SREEJITH THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA NO. 37 OF 2017 -2- J U D G M E N T S.V. Bhatti, J. Heard learned Standing Counsel Mr.Jose Joseph andAdv.Anil D.Nair for parties.2.The Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax/Revenue is the appellant. M/s. FCI OEN ConnectorsLtd/Assessee is the respondent. The subject appeal is at theinstance of Revenue from the order of Income Tax AppellateTribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal') Cochin Bench in ITANo.70/Coch/2016 dated 26.12.2016. The controversiescanvassed in the appeal relate to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 3. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and on an interpretation of Sec. 32(1)(iia)read with the second proviso to Section 32 (1) (ii), isthe Tribunal right in law in holding that "the balance50% of the additional depreciation has to be allowedin the subsequent year" and is not the above findingagainst law and perverse? 2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law, is the Tribunal right in holdingthat "the second proviso to section 32(1)(ii) is to meanthat half of the admissible additional depreciationshould be allowed in the year in which the new plant& machinery is acquired and installed and the balancehalf has to be impliedly allowed in the subsequentyear" and is not the above interpretation andapproach of the Honourable ITAT against law and theintention of the legislature?” 4.The learned Counsel appearing for the parties state that the substantial questions of law raised in the instantappeal are similar to substantial questions raised in I.T.ANo.138/2014. On 05.08.2021, the I.T.A No.138/2014 wasdismissed answering the questions in favour of the Assessee. By adopting the reasons stated therein, the questions are ITA NO. 37 OF 2017 answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue fails anddismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/-S.V.BHATTIJUDGE Sd/-VIJU ABRAHAMJUDGE -5- APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: APPENDIX ANNEXURE A COPY OF ORDER U/S.92CA(3) OF THE I.T.ACT ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 14.01.2016 ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE DRP'S ORDER DATED 28.12.2015 ANNEXURE D CERTIFIED PLUS COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OFTHE ITAT COCHIN BENCH IN ITA No.70/COCH/2016 DATED 26.12.2016 FOR A.Y.2011-12.