B.n.rao Nalla, J v.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA REFERRED CASE Nos.54, 81 of 1998; 42 of 2002; 3 and 6 of 2004 Dated:08.12.2011 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax,A.P.I, Hyderabad,And another. …Applicant and M/s.Surya Farms, Hyderabad,And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA REFERRED CASE Nos.54, 81 of 1998; 42 of 2002; 3 and 6 of 2004 COMMON ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In all these Referred Cases under Section 256(1)of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of theRevenue, the question is whether the ‘poultry shed’should be treated as a ‘plant’ thereby allowing theassessee to claim higher rate of depreciation asapplicable to plant and not the rate of depreciation asapplicable to building. The questions referred are extracted below. In R.C.No.54 of 1998 at the instance of theCommissioner of Income Tax, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Hyderabad Bench “B”, referred the followingquestion for the opinion of this Court. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT was correctin law in treating the ‘poultry shed’ as ‘plant’for the purpose of allowing depreciation andinvestment allowance? In R.C.No.81 of 1998 at the instance of theCommissioner of Income Tax, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Hyderabad Bench “A”, referred the followingquestion for the opinion of this Court. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT was correctin law in treating the ‘poultry sheds’ as ‘Plant’for the purpose of allowing depreciation? In R.C.No.42 of 2002 at the instance of theCommissioner of Income Tax, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Hyderabad Bench “A”, referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court. 1. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT was correctin law in directing to allow depreciation andinvestment allowance on poultry sheds treatingthem as ‘plant’? 2. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT was correctin law in directing the assessing officer to allowsome deduction towards fall in the value of thebirds, by way of depletion allowance? In R.C.No.3 of 2004 at the instance of theCommissioner of Income Tax, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Hyderabad Bench “A”, referred the followingquestion for the opinion of this Court. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correctin law in treating the poultry sheds as ‘plant’for the purpose of allowance of depreciation? In R.C.No.6 of 2004 at the instance of theCommissioner of Income Tax, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Hyderabad Bench “A”, referred the followingquestion for the opinion of this Court. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal iscorrect in holding that the poultry farm is anindustrial undertaking for the purpose of reliefu/s 80 HHA and 80 I ? The questions referred to this Court are squarelycovered by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v Padmavathi Hatcheries P.Ltd[[1]]wherein this Court has held that the ‘poultry shed’ isnot a ‘plant’, and the question referred was answered infavour of the Revenue holding that the assessee is notentitled to claim higher rate of depreciation treating‘poultry shed’ as a ‘plant’. Following the decision in Padmavathi Hatcheries P.Ltd , the questions referred to in allthese Referred Cases are answered in the negative infavour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Referred Cases shall stand disposed ofaccordingly. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ____________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) vs [1](2011) 335 IT R 325