Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 3920 2008 SLD 3920 (2008) 300 ITR 202
Punjab and Haryana High Court
IT REFERENCE No. 100 OF 1999 OCTOBER 28, 2006
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of IncomE tax, Ludhiana

v.

Sona Woollen Mills P. Ltd.

Law:

Section:

Section 32, read with section 115J, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Depreciation - Allowance/Rate of - Assessment year 1989-90 - Assessee claimed depreciation as per provisions of Act for computing quantum of income under section 115J - Assessing Officer rejected claim of assessee on ground that depreciation for purposes of section 115J was permissible as per Schedule XIV of Companies Act - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed claim of assessee holding that depreciation provided under Companies Act was minimum but there was no bar to higher depreciation being claimed by assessee and, thus, for purposes of section 115J, depreciation actually debited could be allowed - Whether in view of Supreme Court decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 122 Taxman 562, Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding so - Held, yes CASES REFERRED TO Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273/ 122 Taxman 562 (SC) [Para 4], CIT v. Dynamic Orthopedics (P.) Ltd. [2002] 257 ITR 446/124 Taxman 171 (Ker.) [Para 5], CIT v. Vandana Rolling Mills Ltd. [1998] 234 ITR 693/[1999] 102 Taxman 157 (MP) [Para 5], CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd.[2002] 253 ITR 378/ 120 Taxman 343 (Ker.) [Para 5] and Dy. CIT v. Vardhman Fabrics (P.) Ltd. [2002]254 ITR 431/ 122 Taxman 375 (Guj.) [Para 5]. S.K. Garg Narwana for the Applicant. Rakesh Bakshi and S.K. Mukhi for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. Following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, arising out of its order dated 8-8-1997 in ITA No. 102/Chd./94, for the assessment year 1989-90 :- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) allowing depreciation as per Income-tax Rules to the assessee for computing the quantum of income under section 115J primarily on the ground that the same was based on the views expressed by the then Chairman of the CBDT in a departmental publication?" 2. The assessee declared its income nil for the assessment year 1989-90. It calculated its income after claiming depreciation as per provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), which was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492