Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/358/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No.358 of 2008
==========================================================
THE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I - Appellant
Versus
DEEPAK
NITRITE LTD. - Opponent
==========================================================
Appearance :
MRS
MAUNA M BHATT/MR MANISH R BHATT for Appellant.
None for
Opponent.
==========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE K. A. PUJ
and
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE BANKIM N. MEHTA
Date
: 28/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)
Heard
Ms.Mauna M. Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
Revenue.
2. The
Revenue has filed this Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1992-93 proposing to formulate
the following question of law:
?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
?Sowned?? by the assessee in terms of Section 32 of the Act, by
disregarding the binding ratio of the Apex Court in the case of Tamil
Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, 249 ITR 214 (SC)???
3. An
identical question arose before this Court in assessee’s own case in
Income Tax Reference No.23 of 1996 with Tax Appeal No.150 of 1999.
The question posed before this Court in the said Tax Reference as
well as Tax Appeal was as under:
?SWhether,
on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is
right in holding that the assessee is entitled to grant of
depreciation on factory building and office 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???
While
answering the said question in favour of the assessee and against the
Revenue, this Court has held that since assessee acquired the
possession and was running factory on payment of substantial part of
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. While deciding the Tax Reference and the Tax Appeal in
favour of the assessee, this Court has referred to decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Limited
vs. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC).
4. Following
the aforesaid decision of this Court in the assessee’s own case, we
are of the view that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the
assessee and against the Revenue. We are, therefore, not formulating
any question of law as no question of law is arising out of the order
of the Tribunal and even if such question arises, the same is
concluded by the decision of this Court in the assessee’s own case.
Therefore,
the Tax Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
[K.A.
Puj, J.]
[Bankim
N. Mehta, J.]
Rajendra
Top