M/s. Camphor & Allied Products Ltd, Vadodara V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara

ITA 819/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8053 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K P SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH ((BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 819/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) M/S. CAMPHOR @ ALLIED PRODUCTS LIMITED. PLOT NO. 3, GIDC IND. ESTATE , VADODARA-391340 (GUJ) V/S DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAACC9211E APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.P. SINGH, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KEYUR PATEL, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 12 -04-201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 -06-2018 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, BARODA DATED 14.10.2014 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2010-11 AND FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN: ITA NO. 819/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-11 2 1. ON THE FACTS, AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -I, BARODA (REFERRED TO AS CIT) ERRE D IN DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AT RS. 17,21,08,451/- AS A GAINST TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 16,79,99,185/- DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN RETAINING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS. 3,450/- AS MADE BY A.O U/S 14A OUT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15,450/-. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING FOREIGN T RAVEL EXPENSES OF RS 12,07,856/-ON AD- HOC BASIS OUT OF TOTAL FOREIGN TR AVEL EXPENSES OF RS. 48,27,425/-. 4. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF W EIGHTED DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB) @ 150% OF RS 22.09 LACS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE DE TAILED SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND NOT FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CLARI S LIFESCIENCE LTD. 174 TAXMAN 1 13(GUJ). 5. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE 85 INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HAS RENEWED RECOGNITION O F IN-HOUSE R&D UNIT UPTO 31 / 03/2012 AND THE SAME WAS FILED WITH THE CIT. ON THE FACT, THE CIT OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF WEIGHTED DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB) AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 6. THE LD. CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN DISALLOWING AD DITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS. 14,85,697/- ON NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY OF RS. 7,42, 846/- ON THE GROUND THAT PLANT AND MACHINERY IS NOT NEW ONE. 7. THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE ME ANING OF THE WORD 'PLANT' IN ITS ORDINARY MEANING AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE GU JARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ELECON ENGINEERING LTD. 96 ITR 672 (GUJ) AN D CIT VS. TAJ MAHAL HOTEL 82 ITR 44 (SC) AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION THA T ALL ADDITIONS MAY NOT BE OF INDEPENDENT MACHINES BUT PLANT IS DEFINED TO INCLUD E WHATEVER APPARATUS OR INSTRUMENTS WHICH ARE USED BY A BUSINESSMAN IN CARR YING ON THE BUSINESS. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THAT ADDITIONS MADE HEREIN ABOVE BE DELETED. ITA NO. 819/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-11 3 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE-BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF CHEMICALS. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESS EE HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT OF RS.3030,43 LACS ON THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS.16546.2 1 LACS WHICH WORKS OUT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 18.31 % AS AGAINST THE GROSS P ROFIT OF RS.2228.24 LACS, ON THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS.13463.88 LACS WHICH WORKS OUT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 16.55% SHOWN IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMEN T YEAR. 3. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED DIVIDEND OF RS.45,000/- AND CLAIMED, IT AS EXEMPT U /S,10(34/35) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE IS PAYING INTEREST ON SECURED AND UNSECURED LOAN AND T HEREFORE, ANY INVESTMENT FROM THE FUND OF BUSINESS WHICH HAS INTEREST BEARIN G ON IT IS UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSE, THE CORRESPONDING INTEREST AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE REQUIRES TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D AND DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15,456/- WAS MADE. 4. ON PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FILED ALO NG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DEBITED EXPENDIT URE OF RS. 48,27,425/- TOWARDS FOREIGN TRAVEL BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND DIRECTORS. BUT AS PER A.O. THE DETAILS OF THE COUNTRY AND DETAILS OF THE PERSO NS WHO TRAVELLED ABROAD WAS NOT CONVINCED. THEREFORE, A.O. DISALLOWED TO THE EX TENT OF 25% OF CLAIM OF RS. 48,27,425/- WHICH IS WORKED OUT AT RS. 12,06,85 6/- WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. ITA NO. 819/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-11 4 5. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED WEIGHTED DEDUCTION OF @ 1 50% U/S. 35(2AB) OF RS. 63,68,960/-. THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED VIDE ORDER SHE ET ENTRY DATED 30.01.2013 WHY WEIGHTED DEDUCTION @ 150% SHOULD NOT BE DISALLO WED. 6. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REP LY WHICH IS REPRODUCED HERE AS UNDER:- THIS REPORT IN .FORM 3CL IS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IN RELATIO N TO APPROVAL1 OF THE IN HOUSE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITY UNDER SECTION 35(2AB)(4) I N ORDER TO ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE FOR WEIGHTED DEDUCTION. THIS REPORT IS TO BE SUBMITTED, TO DIREC TOR GENERAL (INCOME TAX EXEMPTION), THIS REPORT IS TO BE SENT BY HIM WITHIN 60 DAYS FRO M THE DATE OF GRANTING APPROVAL. WE ARE FILING RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION OF IN-HOUSE R&D UNIT VALID UPTO 31.03.2012. WE HAVE ALREADY, FILED REQUIRED DETAILS TO THE DEPARTMENT O F SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH, MINISTER OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ON 20.05.2009. THE COPY IS FILED. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO JUDGMENT OF HO N'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CLARIS LIFESCIENC ES LTD, ON 174 TAXMAN I13.(GUJ), WE WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION ON PARA 6 OF PAGE NO. 116 WHICH READS AS UNDER: '(THE WORDS USED ARE ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY TH E ASSESSEE ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON THE IN- HOUSE R&D FACILITY APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHO RITY HAS TO BE ALLOWED BY DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED. MEANING OF THIS WORD EXPLA IN AND CLEAR THAT THE FACILITY IS TO BE ESTABLISHED FIRST AND ON APPROVAL OF THE FACILITY A LL THE EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF IN-HOUSE FACILITY IS TO BE HELD AS ELIGIBLE FOR WEIGHTED DEDUCTION. FORM NO. 3 CM WHICH IS ORDER OF APPROVAL AS PROVIDED BY THE RU LES IN THIS BEHALF ALSO DOES NOT HAVE ANY MENTION OF DATED OF APPROVAL. RATHER, IT SPEAKS OF ONLY APPROVAL. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE READING MORE THAN WHAT IS PROVIDED BY LAW. A PLAIN AND SIMPLE READING OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT ON APPROVAL OF R&D FACILITY EXPENDITURE SO INC URRED IS ELIGIBLE FOR WEIGHTED DEDUCTION.)' THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IS FILED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED CERTIFICATE OF RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION OF IN-HOUSE R&D ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTI FIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY BHAVAN. ITA NO. 819/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-11 5 SUBMISSION OF THE COMPANY HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND I S NOT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE. AS PER CLAUSE(C) OF RULE 6(7A), THE COMPANY SHALL M AINTAIN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT FOR EACH APPROVED FACILITY WHICH SHALL BE AUDITED A NNUALLY AND COPY THEREOF SHALL BE FURNISHED TO THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH BY 31 ST DAY OF OCTOBER OF EACH SUCCEEDING YEAR. THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT MENTIONED ANY SEPARATE ACCOUNT FOR ITS APPROVED FAC ILITY .THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY SUBMITTED A LEDGER COPY OF R& D EXPENSES FOR ME PER IOD UNDER CONSIDERATION, SEPARATE ACCOUNTS WHICH HAVE, BEEN AUDITED HAVE NOT BEEN .PRODUCED FOR THE R& D FACILITY AS PER RULE 6(7A) OF I.T RULES,1962. AND WHICH IS NOT SEPARATELY ACCOUNTED AND AUDITED IN VERIFICATION OF LEDGER IT IS SEEN THAT EVEN NON ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB ) LIKE BASIC REMUNERATION TO M.D ETC HAS BEEN DEBITED TO THE R & D LEDGER A/C . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED COPY OF THE SEPARATE ACCOUNT, TO THE DSIR . THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RELIED ON VARIOUS COU RT JUDGMENTS THE FACTS OF WHICH ARE FOUND TO BE DIFFERENT FROM THE INSTANT CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALSO FAILED CO FURN ISH THE COPY OF 3CL/3CK TO ESTABLISH THAT IT HAS FULFILLED ALL THE PARAMETE RS OF SECTION 35(2AB)OF IT ACT R.W. RULE 6(IB),(4)(5A) AND 7(A) OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE AFOREMENTIONED ABOVE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE'S ADDITIONAL CLAIM OF 50% BEING WEIGHT ED DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB) OF THE ACT OF RS 14,01,,257/-ON CLAIM OF R&D EXPENS ES IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . ITA NO. 819/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-11 6 7. ON PERUSAL ON THE DEPRECIATION CHART ANNEXED TO TAX AUDIT REPORT, IT IS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATI ON ON PURCHASE OF SO CALLED NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. HOWEVER, IT IS OBSERVED FROM-THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS AS SUBMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN RESPONSE TO DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE THAT SO CALLED N EW PLANTS AND MACHINERY ON WHICH THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED IS NOT A NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY BUT IT IS PARTS OF EXISTING PLANT OR MACH INERY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY VIDE ORDER SHEET DATED 13.02.2013 WAS ASKED TO EXPL AIN WHY THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON SUCH NEW PLANT OR MACHINERY SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. 8. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, ASSESSEE STATED THA T AS PER SEVERAL LEGAL DECISIONS, ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION B UT SAME PLEA WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. AND HE DISALLOWED THE ADDITI ONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS. 14,85,697/-. 9. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPE AL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. NOW APPELLANT HAS COME BEFORE US. 11. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD IN THE IMP UGNED ORDER. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DELAYED BY 86 DAYS. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CON TENTION, ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT. WE ARE SATISFI ED WITH THE REASON MENTIONED THEREIN AND WE CONDONED THE DELAY. 12. SO FAR DISALLOWANCE OF 3450/- AS MADE BY THE A.O. U /S. 14A IS CONCERNED, SAME IS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. A.R. BECAUSE OF SMALLNESS OF AMOUNT. DURING THE YEAR ITA NO. 819/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-11 7 UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS CLAI MED RS. 48,27,425/- TOWARDS FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES. THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENSES IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. VIDE LE TTER SUBMISSION DATED 13.02.2013, DETAILED INFORMATION ALONG WITH DATE OF TRAVEL, PERSON WHO HAS TRAVELLED, THE PLACES VISITED AND PURPOSE OF FOREIG N VISIT WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. BUT A.O. MADE DISALLOWANCES ON AD-HOC BASI S I.E. 25% OF TOTAL FOREIGN TRAVEL MERE ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION AND SAME WA S CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). LD. A.R. HAS SUBMITTED DETAILS WITH REGARD TO PERSONS WHO TRAVELLED AND PLACES OF TRAVEL AND PURPOSE OF TRAVELS AND SAM E IS PART OF PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO. 18. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, LOWER AUTHORITIES OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISALLOWED 25% OF TOTAL FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPE NSES AS APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED EACH AND EVERY DETAILS PERTAINING TO FORE IGN TRAVEL, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 13. SO FAR DENYING THE CLAIM OF WEIGHTED DEDUCTION U/S. 35(2AB) @ 150% OF RS. 2209 LAKHS IS CONCERNED, APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED A C ERTIFICATE OF RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION OF IN-HOUSE R & D UNIT DATED 11.08.200 9. THE CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND CERTI FICATE BEARS FOLLOWING LINES: 'THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT IT HAS BEEN DECIDED TO ACCORD RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION TO THE IN- HOUSE R & D UNIT(S) OF YOUR FIRM AT 3 INDUSTRIAL AR EA, NANDESARI, DIST. BARODA UP TO 31.03.2012. THE ABOVE WORDINGS OF THE CERTIFICATE THEMSELVES SH OW THAT AN APPROVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED FOR CLAIMING WEIGHTED DEDUCTION U/S. 3 5(2AB) OF THE ACT FOR EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT A CTIVITY. HOWEVER, THE LD. AS WELL AS CIT(A) DID NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE AUTHENTICATED CERTIFICATE, ITA NO. 819/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-11 8 ISSUED BY DSIR, GOVT. OF INDIA. IN FACT, BEFORE GRA NTING RECOGNITION, THE DSIR VERIFIES THE FINANCIAL BUDGET FOR THE EXPECTED EXPE NSES INCURRED FOR R & D ACTIVITY. IF DSIR SATISFY THE BUDGET, THEN ONLY THE Y GRANT THE RECOGNITION OR RENEW THE RECOGNITION TO INCUR EXPENDITURE TOWARDS R & D. 14. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CLARIS LIFESCIENCES LTD. 174 TAXMANN 113 (GUJ.) (2008). IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT WHETHER SECTION 35(2AB) NOWHERE SUGGESTS THAT DATE OF APPROVAL OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILI TY WILL BE CUT-OFF DATE FOR ELIGIBILITY OF WEIGHTED DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTIO N ON EXPENSES INCURRED FROM THAT DATE ONWARDS; ONCE FACILITY IS APPROVED, ENTIR E EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED ON DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITY HA S TO BE ALLOWED FOR WEIGHTED DEDUCTION. 15. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. 16. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION O N PARTS ( AS PER BELOW MENTIONED TABLE) OF EXISTING PLANT & MACHINERIES, F ITTED IN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SR PARTICULARS AMOUNT ADDITIONAL NO. DEPRECIATION @ 20% 1 SOLID FUEL HEATER 65,35,921 13,07,184 2 EXTENDED SET FOR 7,28,264 1,45,653 COMPRESSOR/ OVERHAULING ITA NO. 819/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-11 9 OF SYSTEM FOR45 TR CHILLING PLANT 3 STRUCTURAL FABRICATION & 1,64,301 32,860 INSULATION WORK IN REACTORS /VESSELS IN ASTROMERAN PLANT TOTAL 14,85,6 97 17. BUT LOWER AUTHORITIES DID NOT CONSIDER AFORESAID IT EMS AS PLANT. THE LD. A.R. CITED A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE MA TTER OF CIT VS. TAJ MAHAL HOTEL 82 ITR 44 (SC) AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION THA T ALL ADDITIONS MAY NOT BE INDEPENDENT OF MACHINES BUT PLANT IS DEFINED TO INC LUDE WHATEVER APPARATUS OF INSTRUMENTS WHICH ARE USED BY A BUSINESSMAN IN CARR YING ON THE BUSINESS. 'A.O. IN HIS ORDER CONTENDED THAT FOR CLAIMING THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION THE ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE IN NEW PLANT OR MACHINERY A ND IT SHOULD BE ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED DURING THE YEAR. 18. THE LD. A.R. ALSO CITED AN ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH CO URT IN THE MATTER OF CIT VS. ELECON ENGINEERING CO. LTD. [(1974) 96 ITR 672] HAS OBSERVED THAT THE WORD PLANT IN ITS ORDINARY MEANING IS A WORD OF WIDE IMP ORT AND IT MUST BE BROADLY CONSTRUED HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT ARTICLES L IKE BOOKS AND SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS ARE EXPRESSLY INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITIO N OF PLANT IN SECTION 43(3) ITA NO. 819/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-11 10 OF THE ACT. IT INCLUDES ANY ARTICLE OR OBJECT, FIXE D OR MOVABLE, LIVE OR DEAD, USED BY A BUSINESSMAN FOR CARRYING HIS BUSINESS. IT IS NOT CONFINED TO AN APPARATUS WHICH IS USED FOR MECHANICAL OPERATIONS O R PROCESS OR IS EMPLOYED IN MECHANICAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS. 19. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING AFORESAID JUDGMEN T, WE ALLOW CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28 - 06- 2018 SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 28 /06/2018 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD