Madras High Court
TCA/986/2015 of M/S. WHEELS INDIA LTD. Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER on 6 October 2026
TCA No. 986 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
TCA No. 986 of 2015
CNR:{HCMA010527152015}
M/s. Wheels India Limited,
Padi, Chennai- 600 050.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Large Taxpayer Unit (Appeals),
Chennai - 600 101.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘A’
Bench, Chennai dated 14.03.2014 in I.T.A.No.43/Mds/2010 for A.Y. 2006-07.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan
for Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar
For Respondent(s):
Ms.V.Pushpa,
Senior Standing Counsel
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) This is an appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging order dated 14.03.2014 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) for the assessment year 2006 – 07. The substantial questions of law admitted on 27.10.2015 are as follows:- __________
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:45 pm )
2026:MHC:4132 TCA No. 986 of 2015
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that assessee is not entitled for balance 50% of additional depreciation in the current assessment year in respect of assets acquired in previous year and put to use for less than 180 days?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the entitlement to additional depreciation u/s.32(iia) which is vested as incentive for investments in new plant and machinery can be divested by the second proviso to Sec.32(1) which restricted it to 50 per cent?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that second proviso to Sec.32(1) only restricts the quantum of depreciation allowable in the first year of use but in no way restricts or reduces the total amount of Additional depreciation allowable in respect of eligible plant and machinery?
2. The issue relates to whether the balance of additional depreciation of 50% of which 50% had been claimed in the first year, may be carried forward to the subsequent year. This issue has been answered in the assessee’s own case in Wheels India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU Appeals) [(2026) 310 Taxman 168 (Madras)] accepting the claim. Hence, the questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee.
3. This Tax Case (Appeal) is allowed. No costs. (A.S.M.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 06-10-2026 mpl Index: Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes __________
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:45 pm )
2026:MHC:4132 TCA No. 986 of 2015 To
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit (Appeals), Chennai - 600 101.
2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘A’ Bench, Chennai __________
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:45 pm )
2026:MHC:4132 TCA No. 986 of 2015 DR.ANITA SUMANTH J. AND K.RAJASEKAR J. mpl TCA No. 986 of 2015 06-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:45 pm )