Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Sundaram Fasteners Ltd on 20 June, 2022
TCA.No.471 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
T.C.A.No.471 of 2017
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. .. Appellant
Versus
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 Tax Act, 1961
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “D” Bench, Chennai,
dated 04.03.2016 in I.T.A.Nos.688/Mds/2015.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy
For Respondent : Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
TCA.No.471 of 2017
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was made by MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.)
The short question that arises for consideration is whether the assessee
is entitled for 50% of additional depreciation in the assessment year, subsequent
to the assessment year of acquisition and installation of plant and machinery.
2. The above question is no longer res integra and stands resolved by this
Court on more than one occasion, wherein the argument of the Revenue has been
negatived and it was held that it is permissible for the assessee to claim balance
depreciation in the assessment year which follows the assessment year in which
the machinery was acquired and installed albeit, for less than 180 days. In this
regard it may be relevant to refer to the following portion of judgment of this
Court in T.C.A.Nos. 551 of 2013 dated 14.03.2017 and 157 of 2017 dated
06.03.2017 which reads as under:
" T.C.A.No.551 of 2013
9. The last submission that Mr.Ravi advanced was in fact,
predicted on the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer, which,
according to us, is misconceived, as the manner of calculation of
depreciation, cannot, to our minds, impede the claim of the Assessee
for balance additional Depreciation, in the year following the
previous year, in which, the said asset is installed and put to use.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.No.471 of 2017
10. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in
the submissions advanced by the Revenue.
T.C.A.No.157 of 2017:
11.4. We are, clearly, of the view that the Memorandum, which
is sought to be relied upon by the Revenue, only clarifies as to how
the unamended provision had to be read all along.
11.5. In any event, insofar as the Court is concerned, it has to
go by the plain language of the unamended provision, and then,
come to a conclusion in the matter. As alluded to above, our view, is
that, upon a plain reading of the unamended provision, it could not
be said that the Assessee could not claim balance depreciation in the
A.Y., which follows the A.Y., in which, the machinery had been
bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days. "
3. Accordingly, the questions of law stand answered against the Revenue
and this Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
[R.M.D., J.] [M.S.Q., J.]
20.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking Order
psa
To:
1.The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai.
2.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “D” Bench,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.No.471 of 2017
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
psa
TCA No.471 of 2017
20.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
