TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional depreciation on effluent plant - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(Appeals) has given a categorical finding that cost of construction of tank, etc., forms an integral part of effluent treatment plant and therefore, depreciation on the same is allowable at the rate applicable for plant and machinery as against the rate of building allowed by the Assessing Officer. Regarding chrome recovery plant also, he has given a categorical finding in para 3.7 of his order that in rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, 100 per cent. depreciation is allowable and since the plant is used for less than 180 days in the present year, it is allowable at 50 per cent. The learned Departmental representative for the Revenue could not controvert t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion - Held that:- CIT (Appeals) has relied upon a judgment of CIT v. Surama Tubes P. Ltd. [1991 (1) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA High Court] and on a judgment of Janta Sugar Industries v. CIT as reported in [2005 (2) TMI 12 - HIGH COURT, ALLAHABAD ] where it was held that for claiming depreciation and investment allowance, material date is the date of installation and not the date of acquisition. The disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer on this basis that the drums of ₹ 8,98,835 and paddles of ₹ 2,94,438 were purchased at the end of the financial year 2004-05 but installed in the financial year 2005-06. Since as per these judgments, the material date is the date of installation and not the date of acquisition we find no infirmity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment order and the learned authorised representative for the assessee supported the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has given a categorical finding in para 2 of his order that unsecured loan given to M/s. REP International were fully covered by the interest-free funds available with the assessee. He has also given a finding that the funds of Jajmau unit ₹ 1,27,49,180 which were utilised in Banther unit were also covered by the aforesaid interest-free funds. Under these facts, he followed the judgment of the hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has given a categorical finding in para 3.7 of his order that cost of construction of tank, etc., forms an integral part of effluent treatment plant and therefore, depreciation on the same is allowable at the rate applicable for plant and machinery as against the rate of building allowed by the Assessing Officer. Regarding chrome recovery plant also, he has given a categorical finding in para 3.7 of his order that in rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, 100 per cent. depreciation is allowable and since the plant is used for less than 180 days in the present year, it is allowable at 50 per cent. The lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e hon'ble apex court rendered in the case of Cochin Company v. CIT as reported in [1968] 67 ITR 199 (SC) where it was held that the machines which were reconditioned with substantially new parts are to be treated as new machines. The learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) has reproduced a chart containing analysis of percentage of the cost of new parts to total cost indicating such percentage at 62.50 per cent. and 66.67 per cent. in two cases, 75.89 per cent. and 77.32 per cent. in two cases and more than 87 per cent. in remaining three cases. Hence under these facts, the decision of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is in line with these judgments followed by him. No contrary judgment is cited by the learned Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble. The learned Departmental representative for the Revenue could not point out any mistake in this finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Hence we decline to interfere in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue also. This ground is also rejected. 16. Ground No. 7 is as under : That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 80,494 made by the Assessing Officer on account of additional depreciation on drum and paddle, ₹ 80,494 without appreciating the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. 17. The learned Departmental representative for the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
