The DCIT,(OSD) Range-1, Ahmedabad V. M/s. Claris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 947/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80395 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: NIMISH B SHAH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Additional depreciation; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 947 /AHD/20 1 1 A. Y. 2006 - 0 7 DCIT (OSD), RANGE - 1, AHMEDABAD. VS CLARIS LIFESCIENCE LTD. CORPORATION TO WERS, NR. PARIMAL RLY. CROSSING, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI V.K. SINGH , SR. D.R. , ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI NIMISH B. SHAH, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 04 / 0 9 /201 4 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 1 / 10/ 201 4 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN A PPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) - VI , AHMEDABAD AND THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,03,02,666/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PRODUCT REGISTRATION LESS DEPRECIATION, WI TH A DIRECTION TO ALLOW THIS EXPENSES AS REVENUE WITHDRAWING THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.21,51,623/ - ALLOWED BY THE AO. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,97,006/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON POWER PLANT. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) DATED 24.12.2009 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF PHARMACEUTICALS AND MEDICAL EQUIPMENTS. IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED A SUM ITA NO.947/AHD/2011 DCIT(OSD), RANGE - 1, AHMEDABAD VS. CLARIS LIFESCIENCE LTD. AHMEDABAD FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 - 2 - OF RS.1,24,54,283/ - AS PRODUCT REGISTRATION EXPENSES . A SHOW CAUSE WAS ISSUED AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AND IN COMPLIANCE WHICH WAS INFORMED AS UNDER (ONLY RELEVANT PORTION IS EXTR ACTED): THE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS WHICH MAINLY INCLUDE INJECTIBLES. THE COMPANY'S SALES ARE IN THE DOMESTIC MARKET AS WELL AS IN THE INTERNATIONAL MARKETS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH DOMESTIC LAWS OF COUNTRIES WHERE THE COMP ANY'S PRODUCTS ARE TO BE EXPORTED, THE PRODUCTS ARE FIRST REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED WITH THE LOCAL AUTHORITY EQUIVALENT TO FOOD & DRUGS ADMINISTRATION IN INDIA. GENERALLY, IN ALL COUNTRIES THE REGISTRATION OF THEIR PRODUCTS BY OVERSEAS PHARMACEUTICAL PRODU CTS MANUFACTURERS & SUPPLIERS IS REQUIRED TO BE OBTAINED TO ENABLE THEM TO SELL THE PRODUCTS IN THAT MARKET. FOR PRODUCT REGISTRATION, THE COMPANY IS REQUIRED TO PREPARE PRODUCT DOSSIER GIVING DETAILS OF THE PRODUCT, BULK DRUGS USED IN MANUFACTURING THE PR ODUCT, PROCESS PARAMETERS, TESTS CARRIED OUT AND OTHER TECHNICAL DETAILS. AFTER REGISTRATION OF THE COMPANY, THE COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE TO SELL THE PRODUCT IN THAT COUNTRY. THE PRODUCT REGISTRATION DOES NOT RESULT IN INCREASE IN PRODUCTION CAPACITY, DOES NOT ENHANCE QUALITY OR ALTER TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THOSE PARTICULAR PRODUCTS. THE PRODUCT REGISTRATION OBTAINED BY THE COMPANY DOES NOT GUARANTEE OF ANY SALES OF THOSE PRODUCTS IN THAT MARKET/COUNTRY. IT IS LIKE REGISTRATION OF THE COMPANY IN I NDIA WITH VARIOUS HOSPITALS/GOVERNMENT HEALTH DEPTS. F O R SUPPLY OF VARIOUS PRODUCTS. THIS REGISTRATION WILL ONLY ENABLE THE COMPANY TO SELL THEIR P RO DUCTS IF THERE ARE BUYERS OR THERE IS A DEMAND FOR COMPANY'S PRODUCT IN THAT COUN TRY .. THE COMPANY DOE S NOT GET THE BENEFIT OF ENDURING NATURE AS IT MAY HAPPEN THAT AFTER REGISTRATION, THE COMPANY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SELL IN THAT COUNTRY FOR VARIOUS REASONS LIKE NON ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRODUCT IN THE DOMESTIC MARKET, ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT COUNTRY INC LUDING REALIZATION OF REMUNERATIVE PRICES, EXTENT OF COMPETITION AND RELATIVE COMPETITIVE POSITION OF THE SELLERS, AVAILABILITY OF FACILITIES FOR MANUFACTURE OF SUCH PRODUCT IN DOMESTIC MARKET AND ITS COST OF PRODUCTION, ETC., DOMESTIC PER CAPITA INCOME, C ONSUMER PREFERENCES, GOVERNMENT POLICIES, IMPORT DUTIES, VOLUME OF BUSINESS AVAILABLE, CREDIT TERMS, WARRANTIES PRODUCTS IN COMPLIANCE OF DOMESTIC LAWS, ETC. .. RELIANCE IS PLACED UPON FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: (A) EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD. V. CIT (124 ITR 1)(S UPREME COURT) (B) CIT VS VENKATASUBRAMANIAM (291 ITR 193)( MADRAS) (C) CIT V. AQUA PUMP INDUSTRIES LTD. (218 ITR 427)(MADRAS) (D) CIT V. TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. (123 ITR 538)(BOM) (E) DCIT V. CORE HEALTHCARE LTD. (308 ITR 263)(GUJ.) (F) ALEM BIC CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. VS CIT (177 ITR 377)(GUJ.) ITA NO.947/AHD/2011 DCIT(OSD), RANGE - 1, AHMEDABAD VS. CLARIS LIFESCIENCE LTD. AHMEDABAD FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 - 3 - 2.1 HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED AND ACCORDING TO HIM THE REGISTRATION EXPENDITURE H AS ENTITLED THE ASSESSEE CERTAIN BENEFITS OF ENDURING NATURE. THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED MARKETING RIGHTS WHICH WAS INTANGIBLE ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED VALUABLE MARKETING BENEFITS IN SEVERAL COUNTRIES; HENCE , THE EXPENDITURE WAS IN CAPITAL FI E LD AND NOT A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. AFTER GRANTING DEPRECIATION OF RS.21,51,623/ - ON THE SAID CLAIM, REST OF THE AMOUNT O F RS.1,03,02,660/ - WAS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED FEW CASE LAWS AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: APPELLANT REFERRED DECISION OF MADR AS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF, CIT VERSUS VENKATSUBRAMANIAM REPORTED IN 291 ITR 193. IN THIS DECISION ADMISSION FEE PAID TO BECOME MEMBER OF STOCK EXCHANGES INCLUDING; CONTRIBUTION TO INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND WAS TREATED AS REVENUE. WITHOUT INCURRING THESE EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT START ITS BUSINESS AS SHARE BROKER. SIMILARLY IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE, WITHOUT REGISTERING ITS PRODUCTS, APPELLANT COULD NOT HAVE SOLD ITS PRODUCTS. SINCE THESE EXPENSES ARE NORMAL BUSINESS EXPENSES REQUIRED FOR RUNN ING BUSINESS, THE SAME ARE REVENUE IN NATURE. AS A RESULT OF THESE EXPENSES, APPELLANT MAY GET BENEFIT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE. ALL EXPENSES IN THE NATURE OF ADVERTISEMENT HAVE POTENTIAL FUTURE B ENEFITS BUT ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES ARE NOT CAPITAL IN NATURE. THEREFORE ONE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT FUTURE BENEFITS WILL RESULT IN CREATION OF CAPITAL ASSET AND MAKE THE EXPENSE CAPITAL. CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTS OF THE CASE, NATURE OF EXPENSES, NUMBER AN D QUANTUM OF EXPENSES, THE DISALLOWANCE OF THESE EXPENSES IS NOT CONFIRMED. ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THESE EXPENSES AS REVENUE AND WITHDRAW DEPRECIATION ON THESE EXPENSES ALLOWED BY HIM. 4. AT THE OUTSET, WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE ISSU E OF EXPENDITURE TOWARDS PROJECT REGISTRATION EXPENSES STOOD COVERED BY A DECISION OF ITAT A BENCH AHMEDABAD PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF CADILA HEALTH CARE LTD. (ITA NO.3140/AHD/2010, A.Y. 2006 - 07) ORDER DATED 0 5.0 3 .2012 WHEREIN IT WAS FINALLY HELD AS UN DER: ITA NO.947/AHD/2011 DCIT(OSD), RANGE - 1, AHMEDABAD VS. CLARIS LIFESCIENCE LTD. AHMEDABAD FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 - 4 - 3.12. WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION ARE INEXTRICABLY LINKED WITH THE WORKING OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS. BY INCURRING THOSE EXPENDITURE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACQUIRED ANY NEW RIGHT OF PERMANENT CHARACTER. THE LICENSES OR THE REGISTRATIO NS ARE REQUIRED TO BE RENEWED AND THEREFORE PART OF THE DAY TO DAY RUNNING EXPENDITURE OF THE BUSINESS. [ACIT VERSUS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT 38 SOT 51 (AHD.) L. IF AN EXPENDITURE CAN GIVE A BENEFIT WHICH IS SAID TO BE ENDURED FOR ONE YEAR OR EVEN ANNUALLY Y EAR AFTER YEAR THEN IT IS UNREASONABLE TO HOLD THAT ANY ENDURING BENEFIT TAKEN PLACE TO THE ASSESSEE. [COSMAT MAX LTD.29 SOT 436 (DEL.)]. AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE EXISTING LINE OF BUSINESS IN ORDER TO RUN THE BUSINESS SMOOTHLY THEN THOUGH THE BUSINES S MAY RUN SMOOTHLY IN FUTURE IN THE YEARS TO COME BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF CREATION OF ANY NEW ASSET WE HEREBY HELD THAT SUCH AN ENDURING BENEFIT MAY NOT TANTAMOUNT TO RENDERING OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. [DCIT VERSUS CORE HEALTHCARE 308 ITR 263 (GUJARAT)]. A VE RY IDENTICAL CASE LAW HAS ALSO BEEN CITED PRONOUNCED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VERSUS FINLEY MILLS LTD. 20 ITR 475 AND THE OPINION EXPRESSED WAS THAT AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN REGISTERING FOR THE FIRST TIME ITS TRADEMARK, THEN BY REG ISTRATION THE OWNER IS MERELY ABSOLVED THEREAFTER FROM OBLIGATION TO PROVE HIS OWNERSHIP OF TRADEMARK. AS PER THE HON'BLE COURT THE EXPENDITURE IS NEITHER FOR THE CREATION OF AN ASSET NOR AN ADVANTAGE FOR EVER. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THIS PRECEDENT HAS D IRECT APPLICATION ON THE PRESENT ISSUE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE SAME AND CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX, WE HEREBY ALLOW THE CLAIM. RESULTANTLY, GROUND NOS.2 & 3 ARE ALLOWED. 5. ANOTHER ORDER OF HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS ALSO BEEN C ITED IN THE CASE OF M/S. TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., 213 TAXMANN.CO M 297 (GUJARAT), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 3. THE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHICH CULMINATED INTO THE IMPUGNED ORDER. AS FAR AS THE QUESTION OF TREA TING GARDEN EXPENSES IS CONCERNED, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ISSUE WAS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ITS DECISION IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1347 OF 2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 2004. THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON ITS OWN OBSERVATIONS IN PARA 2 9 OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE SAID APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WITH REGARD TO FOREIGN REGISTRATION FEES, THE TRIBUNAL CONCLUDED THAT SAID EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR OBTAINING REGISTRATION IN THE FOREIGN COUNTRY FOR MARKETING THE PR ODUCTS OVERSEAS, WHICH WAS EXPENDITURE FOR SALES PROMOTIONS, WITHOUT WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MARKET ITS PRODUCT IN THE OVERSEAS MARKET. FURTHER, THESE PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO DRUG REGULATORY AUTHORITIES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES FOR THE PRODUCTS MARKET IN THE RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES. FURTHERMORE, THESE FEES ARE TO BE PAID ON RECURRING BASIS DEPENDING UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE VARIOUS REGISTRATIONS. THE FEES HAVE BEEN PAID ON EXPIRY OF THE REGISTRATION AND OUT OF TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS.8,03, 706/ - IS IN RESPECT OF PRODUCT REGISTRATION IN POLAND. LIKEWISE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN VIETNAM, RUSSIA, GHANA AND CHINA ETC. WE FIND THAT THE EXPORTS OVER THE ITA NO.947/AHD/2011 DCIT(OSD), RANGE - 1, AHMEDABAD VS. CLARIS LIFESCIENCE LTD. AHMEDABAD FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 - 5 - YEARS HAVE INCREASED FROM THE EXPORT SALE OF RS.26 CRORES IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1998 - 1999 TO THE EXPORTS HAVE GROWN TO RS.160 CRORES IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2005 - 06 AN INCREASE OF MORE THAN 600 PER CENT. ACCORDINGLY, THESE EXPENSES ARE RIGHTLY ALLOWED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AND WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 6. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE SIDES IN THE LIGHT O F THE CASE LAW CITED AND THE REASON GIVEN BY THE AO FOR SUCH DISALLOWANCE, WE HEREBY H O LD THAT IN A SITUATION WHEN THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT DOUBTED BY THE AO BUT ONLY ON A TECHNICAL POINT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE ISSUE BEING DIRECTLY COVERED BY THE PRECEDENTS AS CITED ABOVE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE; HENCE, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE HAS NO FORCE , THEREFORE , DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO.2 IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,97,006/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON POWER POINT. 8. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF SUCH MACHINERY WHICH WERE GENERATING ELECTRICITY ON THE GROUND THAT THOSE MACHINERIES WERE NOT PRODUCING ANY ARTICLE OR THING HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AS PRESCRIBED U/S.32(1)(IIA). WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE AO'S ORDER, FACTS OF THE CASE AND APPELLA NT'S SUBMISSION. ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON MACHINERY OF POWER PLANT ON THE GROUND THAT ELECTRICITY GENERATED IS NOT ARTICLES OR TH INGS AND ACCORDINGLY THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 32 ( 1 )(IIA) IS NOT SATISFIED. HOWEVER APPELLANT SUBMIT TED T HAT THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SECTION IS ACQUISITION OF NEW PLANT OR MACHINERY AND (OTHER THAN SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT) AFTER 31 MARCH 2005 BY AN ASSESSEE ENG AGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING. THE FOUR SITUATIONS ARE MENTIONED IN PROVISO TO THIS SECTION IN WHICH ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS NOT ALLOWABLE. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, PLANT AND MACHINERY WAS ACQUIRED AFTER ITA NO.947/AHD/2011 DCIT(OSD), RANGE - 1, AHMEDABAD VS. CLARIS LIFESCIENCE LTD. AHMEDABAD FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 - 6 - 31 MARCH 2005 AND APPELLANT IS ALREADY MANUFACTURING PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS WHICH ARE ARTICLES OR THINGS. THEREFORE APPELLANT FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS FOR CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. APPELLANT DURING APPEAL HEARING ALSO RELIED UPON FOLLOWING DECIS IONS OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN WHICH IT IS HELD THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE SETTING UP OF A NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT SHOULD HAVE ANY OPERATIONAL CONNECTIVITY TO ARTICLE OR THINGS THAT WERE ALREADY MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE. (1) CIT VS. HI TECH ARA IL LTD., (321 ITR 4 77 - MAD) (2) CIT VS. TEXMO PRECISION CASTINGS (321 ITR 481 - MAD) (3) CIT VS. VTM LTD. (229 CTR 70 MAD) I HAVE GONE THROUGH THESE THREE DECISIONS AND IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEES IN THESE CASES WERE INVOLVED IN DIFFERENT ITEMS OF MANUFA CTURING AND PURCHASED WINDMILLS. ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE, HONOURABLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD THAT ASSESSEES ARE ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON COST OF WINDMILL ACQUIRED. IT IS ALSO HELD THAT THE PLANT AND MACHINERY PURCHASED NEED NOT BE OPERATIONALLY USED FOR MANUFACTURING ARTICLES OR THINGS. SINCE THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT NEWLY PURCHASED MACHINERY GENERATED ELECTRICITY WHICH IS NOT ARTICLES OR THING, IS NO LONGER A RELEVANT ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THESE DECISIONS. FROM THE F ACTS NARRATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IN THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT APPELLANT FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON MACHINERY PURCHASED BY IT. THE ADDITION OF MACHINERY WAS AFTER 31ST OF MARCH 2 005. APPELLANT WAS ALREADY IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING ARTICLES FOR THINGS. THE MACHINE PURCHASED IS NOT COVERED BY ANY CLAUSE OF PROVISO TO THIS SECTION. THE SAME WAS NOT USED BY ANY PERSON BEFORE INSTALLATION. IT IS NOT INSTALLED IN OFFICE OR RESIDE NTIAL PREMISES. THIS IS NOT OFFICE APPLIANCE OR ROAD TRANSPORT VEHICLE. FURTHER THESE MACHINES ARE ALSO NOT ELIGIBLE FOR 100 PERCENT DEPRECIATION IN ONE YEAR. CONSIDERING THIS APPELLANT FULFILS ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATI ON. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY PURCHASED. 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE HE REBY AFFIRM THE LEGAL AS WELL AS FACTUAL FINDING OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 10. RESULTANTLY, REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/ - SD/ - ( N.S. SAINI ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 1 / 10 / 20 1 4 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI , SR. P . S . ITA NO.947/AHD/2011 DCIT(OSD), RANGE - 1, AHMEDABAD VS. CLARIS LIFESCIENCE LTD. AHMEDABAD FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 - 7 - / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - III, AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD