TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) concurrently and latter affirmed by the ITAT is erroneous. Even before this Court, learned counsel for the Assessee was unable to demonstrate why the depreciation on the equipments in question should be allowed @ 100% and in respect of approach road, drainage, bore wells, reservoir etc. it should be 25% and not 100%. Question II framed by this Court is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee - As held that the ITAT was right in restricting the claim for depreciation on the equipments in question @ 25% as against 100% as claimed by the Assessee. Road, drainage, bore-well, reservoir etc on which claim for depreciation made @ 25% holding as per schedule holding them as plant etc. ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf arises out of an order dated 30th April, 2004 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissing the Appellant-Assesee s appeal for the Assessment Years (AYs) 1994-95 and 1995-96. The said appeals before the ITAT bearing Nos.168 and 169/CTK/2001 were in turn directed against the common order dated 3rd January, 2001 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the same AYs. 3. The background facts are that the Assessee is in the business of prawn cultivation. The returns filed by the Assessee for the aforementioned AYs were picked up for scrutiny by the Assessing Officer (AO). In the return for the AYs 1994-95, the Assessee had carried forward deficit to the extent of ₹ 2,94,970. In the course of the assessment proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the form of Aerators used by the Aqua-Culture farms could be considered as water pollution control equipments. The CPCB inter alia pointed out that Aerators used for any purpose other than treatment of waste water/sewage effluent/trade effluent may not be considered as a part of pollution control equipment and hence not eligible for tax benefits and concession . The District Fisheries Officer was also issued summons and in his response he disclosed that the effluent discharged from prawn culture farm was harmful to the nearby areas. It was pointed out that Aerators should be considered as aquaculture equipments and not the pollution control equipments. 7. It was on this basis that the AO disallowed the claim of 100% depreciation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Assessee. However, the above decision was in the limited context of a natural pond specially designed for rearing prawns and whether that could be treated as plant within the meaning Section 32 of the IT Act. In the present case, however, no evidence was led by the Assessee and no material was placed before the AO to indicate that it was using a specially designed natural pond for rearing prawns. Therefore, the Court is not persuaded that on the basis of the above decision, the conclusion reached on factual basis by the AO and CIT(A) concurrently and latter affirmed by the ITAT is erroneous. 13. Even before this Court, learned counsel for the Assessee was unable to demonstrate why the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
