M/s. BSC C&C JV, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5219/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86493 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY VOHRA SR SHRI ROHIT JAIN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation

Judgement Text

IN TH E INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5219/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 M/S BSC C&C JV. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 38(1), 74, HEM KUNT COLONY, NEW DELHI. OPPOSITE NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110048 (PAN AADFB 8115 G) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AJAY VOHRA, SR. ADVOCATE, SHRI ROHIT JAIN, ADVOCATE AND MS.DEEPASHREE RAO, CA. RESPONDENT BY: MS. Y. KAKKAR. SR. D.R. ORDER PER SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K , J M : 1. THE APPEAL AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE CIT(A) S ORDER DATED 22.07.2013. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2009 - 10. 2. GROUNDS RAISED READS AS FOLLOWS : - 1. THA T THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION TO THE TUNE OF RS.8,58,60,045 ON PLANT AND MACHINERY, ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENGAGED IN 'MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTI ON OF AN ARTICLE OR THING' AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT'). 2.1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT PRODUCTION OF CONCRETE FROM BITUMEN AND OTHER C OMPONENTS IT A NO. 5219 /DEL /201 3 2 CONSTITUTED 'MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING' IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (IIA) OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. 2.2. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE MERE FACT THAT MIXED CO NCRETE WAS CAPTIVELY USED BY THE APPELLANT IN CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS COULD NOT BE THE SOLE BASIS FOR DENYING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32(1 )(IIA) OF THE ACT. 2.3. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN RELY ING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NC BUDDHIRAJA: 204 ITR 307, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APEX COURT HAD CATEGORICALLY REFRAINED FROM ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF ELIGIBILITY OF ITEMS/ARTICLES PRODUCED AND CAPTIVELY U SED IN CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. 2.4. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAID DEC ISION WAS RENDERED IN CONTEXT WITH THE UNAMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT, PRIOR TO AMENDMENT VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2005 W.E.F. 01.04.2006. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE COMPUTE NORMAL DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32(1)(II) OF THE ACT WITH REFERENCE TO ENHANCED VALUE OF ASSETS ON WHICH ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS DISALLOWED IN EARLIER YEAR(S). 3.1 THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT SUCH DIRECTION CANNOT BE GIVEN SINCE THE APPELLANT: (A) HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT: AND (B) DID NOT RAISE THIS ISSUE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3 . WE SHALL ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE S GROUN D - WISE AS UNDER: - GROUNDS NO.1, 2.1 TO 2.4 ABOVE GROUNDS RELATES TO THE ISSUE ON DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.8,58,60,045/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE AFORESAID CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATI ON ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE OR THING AS REQUIRED U/S 32 (1)(IIA) OF THE ACT. AS REGARD , THE ACTIVITY OF PRODUCTION OF BITUMEN CONCRETE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY MIXING CEMENT, SAND, AGGREGATE AND ADMIXTURE TO FORM CONCRETE, WHICH ACTIVITY ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING IT A NO. 5219 /DEL /201 3 3 OFFICER COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS AMOUNTING TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING. 4 . ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE CIT(A) READS AS FOLLOWS: - 5.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS THEREOF. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS.57,19,54,8401 - WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED TO 55,69,73,6601 - . THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS.8,58,60,045/ - ON PLANT & MACHINERY. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE CLAIM OF ADDITI ONAL DEPRECIATION COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 32(1)IIA WERE NOT FULFILLED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD, WHICH DID NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ARTICLE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL DEPRECATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS N.C. BUDHIRAJA & CO. 204 ITR 307(SC) WHERE IN IT HAS BE EN HELD THAT THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY DOES NOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE OR THING. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT ITS ACTIVITY AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS DECISIONS QUOTED BY IN ITS SUBMISSIONS, HOW EVER, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2004 - 05 AGAINST THE APPELLANT WHEREIN THE HON'BLE ITAT IN ITA NO. 1752/DELL2011 DATED 15.05.2012 HAS HELD AS UNDER: RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF N C BUDHRAJA AND OTHER CITATIONS RELIED ON BY ID CIT(DR), ASSESSEE'S ARGUMENTS AND GROUNDS IN THIS BEHALF ARE REJECTED. 28. THUS AS THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE A PRODUCER OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCE PT THE PLEA THAT TO THE EXTENT OF MANUFACTURING OF INTERMEDIATE BITUMEN MIX, IT MAY BE TREATED AS ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. IN VIEW OF FOREGOINGS, ON MERITS ALSO THE ASSESSEE'S GROUNDS ARE REJECTED. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DULY COVER ED AND IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF THE CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 WHEREIN DECISION HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE ITAT. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5 . THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2004 - 05 (ITA NO. 1217/D/2011 DATED 15.05.2012) IS NOT APPLICABLE IT A NO. 5219 /DEL /201 3 4 TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE , I N VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT BY FINANCE ACT 2005 W.E.F. 01.04.2006. 6 . THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2004 - 05 (SUPRA). 7 . WE HAVE HEARD RI VAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL S ORDER IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2004 - 05 IS NOT APPLICABLE T O THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE , I N VIEW OF THE AME NDMENT TO SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01.04.2006. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE WHETHER THE AMENDMENT WILL MATERIALLY E FFECT THE ISSUE IN QUESTION , T HE PRE AMENDED AND POST AMENDED PROVISION OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - PRIOR TO AMENDMENT THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO AMENDMENT ARE AS UNDER: (IIA) IN THE CASE OF ANY NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT (OTHER THAN SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT), WHICH HAS BEEN ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED AFTER THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2002, BY AN ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING, A FURTHER SUM EQUAL TO FIFTEEN PER CENT OF THE ACTUAL COST OF SUCH MACHINERY OR PLANT SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE (II) : PROVIDED THAT SUCH FURTHER DEDUCTION OF FIFTEEN PER CENT SHALL BE ALLOWED TO - (A) A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING DURING ANY PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH UNDERTAKING BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ANY ARTICLE OR THING ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 20 02; OR (B) ANY INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING EXISTING BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2002, DURING ANY PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH IT ACHIEVES THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION BY WAY OF INCREASE IN INSTALLED CAPACITY BY NOT LESS THAN TEN PER CENT: IT A NO. 5219 /DEL /201 3 5 PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO DED UCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF - EXPLANATION. - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, - (1) 'NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING' MEANS AN UNDERTAKING WHICH IS NOT FORMED, - (A) BY THE SPLITTING UP, OR THE RECONSTRUCTION, OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE; OR (B ) BY THE TRANSFER TO A NEW BUSINESS OF MACHINERY OR PLANT PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE; (2) 'INSTALLED CAPACITY' MEANS THE CAPACITY OF PRODUCTION AS EXISTING ON THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2002' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) AMENDMENT TO SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE AC T SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2005, W.E.F. 01.04.2006 AND APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, READS AS UNDER: (IIA) IN THE CASE OF ANY NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT (OTHER THAN SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT), WHICH HAS BEEN ACQU IRED AND INSTALLED AFTER THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2005, BY AN ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURER OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING, A FURTHER SUM EQUAL TO TWENTY PERCENT OF THE ACTUAL COST OF SUCH MACHINERY OR PLANT SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDU CTION UNDER CLAUSE (II): PROVIDED THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF .......... 8 . FROM THE READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THOUGH THE AMENDED SECTION IS DON E AWAY WITH THE WORDS INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING THE CONDITION THAT THE PLANT AND MACHINERY ON WHICH THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS CLAIMED MUST BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURER OR PRODUCTION OF ARTICLE OR THING IS RETAINED IN THE POST AMENDMENT SECTION. THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2004 - 05 (SU PRA) HELD AS UNDER: - RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF N C BUDHRAJA AND OTHER CITATIONS RELIED ON BY ID CIT(DR), ASSESSEE'S ARGUMENTS AND GROUNDS IN THIS BEHALF ARE REJECTED. 28. THUS AS THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE A PRODUCER OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE PLEA THAT TO THE EXTENT OF MANUFACTURING OF INTERMEDIATE IT A NO. 5219 /DEL /201 3 6 BITUMEN MIX, IT MAY BE TREATED AS ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. IN VIEW OF FORE GOINGS , ON MERITS ALSO THE ASSESSEE'S GROUNDS ARE REJECTED. 9 . IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE THE HON BLE HIGH COURT AND THE SAME IS PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION. WE FIND THAT THE POST AMENDED PROVISION OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA) CLEARLY STIP ULATE THAT THERE SHOULD BE MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ARTICLE OR THING. THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2004 - 05 HAD CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE INTERMEDIARY BITUMEN MIX IS NOT ARTICLE OR THING MANUFACTURED OR PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR AY 2004 - 05 IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE. THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS CORRECT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 10 . IN THE RESULT, THE GROUNDS NO.1, 2.1 TO 2.4 ARE REJECTED. 1 1 . GROUND NO.3 IN THE ABOVE GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE S PLEA IS TO RECOMPUTE NORMAL DEPRECIATION U/S 32(1)(II) OF THE ACT WITH REFERENCE TO THE ENHANCED VALUE OF THE ASSETS O N WHICH ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS DISALLOWE D IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ABOVE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BY RECORDING AS UNDER: - 6.1 I H AVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBM I SS I ONS TH E R E OF . AS DISCUSSED ABOVE , T HE FAC T S OF THE CASE AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THA T THE ASSESSE E FIL ED RE T URN OF IN COME DECLARING INCOME OF RS.5 7, 19 , 54 , 84 0/ - WH ICH WA S S U BSEQUE N T LY R E VI SED TO 55,69,73,6601 - . THE ASSESSEE HAD CLA I MED ADD ITI ON AL DEPRE CIA TI ON OF R S. 8 , 58,60,045 / - ON PLANT & MACHINERY WHICH WAS D I SA L LOWED BY TH E ASSESS I NG O FFI CE R ON T HE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN TH E BUS I NE SS O F CONSTRUC TI O N O F R OA D WH I CH DID NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCT I ON OF A RT IC L E HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL DEPRECATION. THIS D I SALLOWAN CE H AS BEE N UPHE L D B Y TH E HON ' BLE ITAT IN THE APPELLANT ' S OWN CASE IN A.Y . 2004 - 05. DU RI NG TH E APP ELL A T E PROCEEDINGS T HE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT WITHOUT P R E J UD I C E T O IT S IT A NO. 5219 /DEL /201 3 7 CLAIM FOR ADDI TI ONAL DEPRECIATION, I T SHOULD BE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON ENH A NCED WR I T TEN DOWN VA L UE O F T HE ASSE T AS T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED DEPRE CI A TI O N O N T H E N O RMAL WDV AS COMPUTED AFTE R REDUC I NG T HE AMOUNT OF ADD I T I ONA L D E P R E CIATI ON. THE CLAI M OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CONS I DERED . THE APPE L LANT IS IN APPEAL AGA INST T H E OR DER OF HON BL E ITAT , AND HAS NO T ACCEPTED THE ORDE R OF THE HON ' BL E ITA T . I N C ASE TH E ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPE L LANT BY THE HON ' BLE HIGH COURT, I N T HAT C A SE THE ENT I RE EXERC IS E OF ALLOWABILITY OF ADDIT I O N A L DEPRECIATION WOULD BE ESSENT IAL . T H E CLA IM O F THE APPELLANT FOR ALLOWABILITY OF NORMAL DEPRECIATION ON ENHANCED WDV IS THEREFORE REJECTED BEING PREMATURE AS THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT. FURTHER THE APPELLANT HAS NOT RAISED THIS ISSUE DURING ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THEREFORE CLAIM CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN APPEAL. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 1 2 . THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 1 3 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE ACT , DEPRECIATION IS TO BE ALLOWED AS A PERCENTAGE OF WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE ASSETS . THUS , FOR ONE YEAR I F THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IS NOT ALLOWED THEN THE OPENING WRITTEN VALUE OF THE SAME ASSETS IN THE SUCCEED ING YEAR TO THE EXTENT OF DISALLOWAN CE GETS ENHANCED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR S ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . T HE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT. SINCE THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS DISALLOWED IN EARLIER YEARS TO THE EXTENT OF DISALLOWANCE THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE IS TO BE ENHANCED AND THE DEPRECIATION IS TO BE COMPUTED ACCORDINGLY . THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED AND ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT THE AO TO COMPUTE NO RMAL DEPRECIATION U/S 32( I )( II ) OF THE ACT WITH REFERENCE TO THE ENHANCED VALUE OF THE ASSETS ON WHICH ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS DISALLOWED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. NEEDLESS TO STATE , THE REVENUE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO TAKE REMEDIAL MEASURES IN THE EVENT , THE ASSESSEE IT A NO. 5219 /DEL /201 3 8 SUCCEED S IN GETTING THE BENEFIT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON ACCOUNT OF FAVOURABLE JUDGMENT FROM HON BLE HIGH COURT . IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 1 4 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. T H E DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH JANUARY , 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( N.K. SAINI ) (GEORGE GEOR GE K.) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13 TH JANUARY , 201 5 . AKS/ - COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASS T . REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI