Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Deepak Nitrite Ltd
High Court
23 Jan 2001 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Deepak Nitrite Ltd
Date of order
23 Jan 2001
Assessment year(s)
1974-75
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Deepak Nitrite Ltd, the High Court (2001) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus DEEPAK NITRITE LTD. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR AKIL KURESHI with MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitione...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 259 of 1985
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL
and
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO
-------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Versus DEEPAK NITRITE LTD.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
MR AKIL KURESHI with MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner
MR MANISH J SHAH for MR JP SHAH for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL
and
MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
Date of decision: 23/01/2001
ORAL JUDGEMENT
(Per : MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL)
�At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "B" has referred the
following question of law for the opinion of this Court in respect of assessment year 1974-75 :-
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the roads inside the factory should be treated as part of the building and depreciation allowed on the same ?"
2.�The assessee is a Company. It claimed depreciation on the roads costing Rs.78,740/-. The ITO rejected the claim of the assessee. On appeal, the CIT(A) treated the roads as the part of the buildings and held that depreciation should be allowed on the roads as per the rates applicable on the buildings. On further appeal filed by the revenue, the Tribunal confirmed the findings of the CIT(A). Thereupon, reference application was filed by the revenue and, therefore, the above quoted question of law has been referred to us for our opinion.
3.�The learned counsel for the parties state at the
Bar that the point involved in the present reference is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Gwaliar Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd., (1992) 196 ITR 149. In the above quoted decision, the Supreme Court has held that the roads and drains laid within the factory premises are necessary adjuncts to factory buildings and are to be treated as building for the purpose of depreciation.
4.�In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the roads inside the factory should be treated as part of the building and depreciation should be allowed on the same.
�The reference is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
����(J.M. Panchal, J.)
����(M.S. Shah, J.)
sundar/-
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.