Case Law Details
Supermax Personal Care Private Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
The facts on record clearly reveal that in Assessment Year 2012-13 the assessee had purchased new plant and machinery on which additional depreciation @20% is allowable. However, since the plant and machinery were put to use for a period of less than 180 days in Assessment Year 2012-13, the additional depreciation was restricted to 50% of the admissible amount. In other words, depreciation was allowed @10%. The balance unclaimed additional depreciation was claimed by the assessee in the impugned assessment year. Now, the law is fairly well settled that the balance unclaimed amount of additional depreciation has to be allowed to the assessee in the immediately succeeding assessment year. In this context, we may refer to the following decisions, wherein, it has been held that the amendment made to section32(1)(iia) by Finance Act, 2015 being clarificatory in nature would apply retrospectively.
1. Rittal India Pvt Ltd 80 ITR 423 (Kar)
2. Shree T.P. Textiles Pvt Ltd – 79 com 411
3. PCIT vs Godrej Industries Ltd – ITA No. 511/Mum/2016
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
