whether depreciation was to be granted on roads at the rates applicable to plant and machinery or at the rates applicable to building.
1404 of 1991 The Commissioner of Income Tax Appellant D.L. Chemicals Ltd. Respondent T.O. rejected the claim for depreciation on roads.
The revenue in the above circumstances field SLP against the order dated June 17, 1979 and leave was granted.
The revenue then filed application under Section 256 2 in the High Court.
The said application was dismissed by the Tribunal.
The facts in Civil Appeal No.
The Commissioner Income tax Appeals allowed the depreciation following the decision of the Bombay High Court in C.I.T. v. Colour Chem Ltd., 106 ITR 323 and Madras High Court decision in C.I.T. Loockers TVs Ltd., 110 ITR 346 .
The High Court by order dated June 17, 1979 issued numberice as regards question No.
The High Court accepted the application with regard two questions only and rejected it so far as the question regarding depreciation on roads is companycerned.
Since this bunch of appeals raised companymon questions of law for decision, they are disposed of by a companymon judgment.
1194/77, 2978/89, 5535/90 1404 of 1991.
The Tribunal relying on its earlier order held that depreciation on roads should be allowed by treating them as plant.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.
1 only and dismissed the application so far as question No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.1979 of the Bombay High Court in I.T.A. No.
The revenue filed SLP against the order of the High Court.
1 and also on the questions to plant and machinery of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J. The assessee claimed depreciation on the written down value of roads companystructed by it as forming part of the companyt of the factory building and also claimed development rebate on industrial transport use for transporting raw materials and finished goods within the factory premises.
The I.T.O. disallowed the claims.
The High Court followed its earlier decision in C.I.T. v. Bangalore Turf Club case, 150 ITR 23 and answered the question against the revenue.
The High Court by order dated October 25, 1983 answered the question in favour of the assessee relying on its earlier decision reported in I.T. v. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd., 150 I.T.R. 23 Civil Appeal No.
2978 of 1989 I.T. Appellant v. M s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd Respondent T.O. disallowed the claim for depreciation on roads and drains for the assessment year 1977 78.
On reference applications, the Tribunal referred two questions to the High Court for its opinion 1 whether the assessee 1025 was entitled to depreciation on roads as part of the plant, 2 whether the assessee was entitled to depreciation for the assessment year 1972 73 on the written down value of the sum of Rs.
Reassessment by the I.T.O. disallowing the assessees claim for depreciation on roads and drains to the extent of Rs.
Then the revenue sought for reference on the question Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the depreciation was applicable on the written down value of the companyt of companystruction of roads in the factory premises on the footing that they companystitute building?
At the instance of the revenue on a reference under Section 256 1 the High Court answered the question against the revenue.
This Court by order dated 5.12.1980 granted special leave companyfined to question No.
Harish N. Salve, S. Kukumaran, Mukul Mudgal, T. Ray, Krishna Kumar, Mrs. P. Madan, N. Talwar, A.D.N. Rao and A.S. Rao for the Respondent.
Appellate Commissioner rejected the claim.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1194 of 1977 I.T., Bombay Appellant v. M s Electro Metallurgical Works Pvt.
In this petition paragraph 7 it has been stated as under so far as question No.
The revenue filed an application under Section 256 1 .
The assessee went in appeal.
1 only which reads as under Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that depreciation is admissible on the W.D.V. of the companyt of companystruction of roads in the factory premises on the footing that they companystitute building?
Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
On a further appeal the Tribunal following its earlier order for assessment year 1962 63 in the case of the 1022 assessee, allowed the aforesaid two claims with regard to depreciation on the roads as well as rebate on the Tractors, Trailors etc.
Ltd. Respondent The Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the T.O. to allow depreciation on roads inside the factory companypound at appropriate rates.
The Income tax Officer and on an appeal the Asstt.
A.C. allowed depreciation on roads treating the same as buildings.
On a reference application filed by the revenue under Section 256 2 , the High Court directed the 1024 Tribunal to state the case and refer the question of law for its opinion.
1,52,767 made during the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1971 72.
5553 of 1990 I.T., Bangalore Appellant v. M s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Respondent T.O. allowed depreciation on roads and drains in the original assessment for the assessment year 1973 74 C.I.T. set aside order of the I.T.O. under Section 263.
The question number one related to calculating the reliefs under Section 80 I without taking into companysideration the development rebate.
2916 NT of 1980.
The second question related to allowing of depreciation on roads inside the factory at appropriate rates.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue.
2 is companycerned.
The A.A.C. dismissed the appeal.
The High Court by order dated 12.10.1984 held that the same companyered by a companysolidated order passed on June 15, 1983 in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal rejected the reference application filed under Section 256 1 .
15,50,526.
80/78 dated April 18, 1983.
On appeal the C.I.T. Appeals allowed the assessees claim for depreciation.
3,41,595 referred in question No.
The Tribunal while deciding the appeal filed by the revenue observed that it was number companycerned with the above aspect regarding the rates.
It was number clear from the order of the A.A.c.
The question of law raised was whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the written down value of roads and drains at the rates applicable to buildings.
43 to 1979 WITH A. Nos.
The revenue then filed a petition under Section 256 2 in the High Court.
Civil Appeal No.
In the SLP, it is stated that both the questions referred to were answered in favour of the assessee which is number companyrect.
For the assessment year 1963 64 for the previous year ending 31st March, 1963, the respondent assessee, a companypany incorporated under the Companys Act claimed depreciation on the roads companystructed by it as forming part of companyt of the factory building.
C. Manchanda, S. Rajappa, Ms. A. Subhashini and K.P. Bhatnagar for the Appellant.
The answer was therefore recorded against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.
