Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/517/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 517 of 2008
=========================================================
THE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I - Appellant(s)
Versus
DEEPAK
NITRITE LIMITED - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
MAUNA M BHATT for
Appellant(s) : 1,MR MANISH R BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for
Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 27/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)
1. The
revenue has filed this Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the
Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2002-03 proposing to
formulate the following substantial questions of law for
determination and consideration of this Court.
(A) ?SWhether,
on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate
Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A)
whereby he allowed depreciation on the factory and office building
at Pune, despite the sale deed not having been executed in favour of
the assessee and the property not standing in its name and hence
not ‘owned’ by the assessee in terms of section 32 of the Act??
(B) Whether,
on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate
Tribunal was right in law in holding that the tax credit u/s 115JAA
has to be allowed before the calculation of interest u/s 234B an
234C as per law as it stood at the relevant time?
2. Heard
Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for
the Revenue.
3. So
far as Question ? A is concerned, this issue is squarely covered
by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of
Income-Tax Vs. Deepak Nitrite Ltd., (2000) 243 ITR 825. wherein this
Court has taken a view that, ?Ssince the assessee acquired
possession and was running the factory on payment of a substantial
part of the price, the assessee was entitled to grant of
depreciation on the factory building though the conveyance deed in
respect of these properties was not registered in favour of the
assessee till the end of the accounting year relevant to the
previous year under consideration.?? In this view of the matter, we
do not formulate Question ? A proposed by the revenue.
4. So
far as Question ? B is concerned, Tax Appeal No.644 of 2007
involving similar question was admitted by this Court on 15-10-2007
in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax V/s. M/s. Harsha Engineers
Pvt. Ltd.
5. In
above view of the matter, this Tax Appeal is admitted in terms of
Question-B referred to here-in-above. Notice to the other side.
Additional paper-book, if any, be prepared within three months from
today.
(K.A.
Puj, J.)
(Bankim
N. Mehta, J.)
/JVSatwara/
Top