TMI Blog1935 (7) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermination before us is whether the assessee, Rao Bahadur Bhikaji Venkatesh, was entitled to any allowance in respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture under Sec. 10(2)(vi) of the Act for the year in respect of which the assessment was made. Rao Bahadur Bhikaji Venkatesh owns a ginning factory at Yeotmal and has joined a pool of several owners of such factories. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been taken in Radha Kishen Sons v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab. The learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the words used for the purpose of the business , occurring in Sec. 10(2) (iv), were general and only meant such as were generally used or might be used for the purposes of the business and not actually used during any particular year. We cannot, however, accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nging to the Sri Gopalji Company were not actually used in the business which was carried on by the company during the year, but were used for the purposes of other business, and it was held that the company could not claim any allowance on account of depreciation. The case in Sadhucharan Roy v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal, does not appear to us to be in point, because there the question wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate. We do not think, then, that any safe deduction can be made from clause (iv) of Sec. 10(2) with regard to clause (vi) of that Section. We must hold, as indicated above, that in the latter clause, though the words such buildings, machinery, plant, or furniture would mean buildings, machinery, plant or furniture used for the purposes of the business, used , must here mean actually used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
