Tca/471/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Sundaram Fasteners Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.06.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVANAND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai... Appellant M/s.Sundaram Fasteners Ltd.,98-A, 7th Floor,Dr.RAdhakrishnan Salai,Mylapore, Chennai-600004... Respondent Appeal filed under Section 260 (A) of the the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal“D” Bench, Chennai, dated 04.03.2016 in I.T.A.Nos.688/Mds/2015against the Assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai 34, dated30.01.2015 in PAN for the Assessment Year 2010-11,directions dated 27.11.2014 by the Income Tax Officer(Hqrs)International taxation, Chennai and Secretary to the DisputeResolvationPanel,Chennaidated27.11.2014inF.No.DRP/CHE/24/2014-15 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. For Appellant:Mr.J.NarayanaswamyFor Respondent:Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar (Judgment of the court was made by MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.) The short question that arises for consideration iswhether the assessee is entitled for 50% of additionaldepreciation in the assessment year, subsequent to theassessment year of acquisition and installation of plant andmachinery. 2. The above question is no longer res integra and standsresolved by this Court on more than one occasion, wherein theargument of the Revenue has been negatived and it was held thatit is permissible for the assessee to claim balance depreciationin the assessment year which follows the assessment year inwhich the machinery was acquired and installed albeit, for lessthan 180 days. In this regard it may be relevant to refer to thefollowing portion of judgment of this Court in T.C.A.Nos. 551 of2013 dated 14.03.2017 and 157 of 2017 dated 06.03.2017 whichreads as under: " T.C.A.No.551 of 2013 9. The last submission that Mr.Ravi advanced wasin fact, predicted on the reasoning given by theAssessing Officer, which, according to us, ismisconceived, as the manner of calculation ofdepreciation, cannot, to our minds, impede the claim ofthe Assessee for balance additional Depreciation, inthe year following the previous year, in which, thesaid asset is installed and put to use. 10. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, we findno merit in the submissions advanced by the Revenue. T.C.A.No.157 of 2017: 11.4. We are, clearly, of the view that theMemorandum, which is sought to be relied upon by theRevenue, only clarifies as to how the unamendedprovision had to be read all along. 11.5. In any event, insofar as the Court isconcerned, it has to go by the plain language of theunamended provision, and then, come to a conclusion inthe matter. As alluded to above, our view, is that,upon a plain reading of the unamended provision, itcould not be said that the Assessee could not claimbalance depreciation in the A.Y., which follows theA.Y., in which, the machinery had been bought and used,albeit, for less than 180 days. " 3. Accordingly, the questions of law stand answered againstthe Revenue and this Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed. Nocosts. //True copy// psa To: 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “D” Bench, Chennai. Chennai. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporte Circle 6(2), Chennai-34. 3. The Income Tax Officer, (Hqrs), International Taxation, Chennai & Secretary to the Dispute Resolvation Panel, Chennai & Secretary to the Chennai. Copy To The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate SR.No.38053 TCA No.471 of 2017 EV(CO)GMY(15/07/2022)