Heard Both Sides v. Venkateswarahatcheries (P) Ltd., ([[1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO& HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Dated 6-7-2010. Between: R.C.No.109 of 1997 Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P-I, Hyderabad. And: Sayeeda Banu, Hyderabad. …Applicant. ...Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO&HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN R.C.No.109 of 1997 ORDER: (Per the Honourable Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that thequestion which has been referred to this Court whether on thefacts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correctin law, in treating the poultry sheds and borewells as ‘Plant’ for thepurpose of depreciation, is squarely covered by the principles laiddown by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court inCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. VENKATESWARAHATCHERIES (P) Ltd., ([[1]]). Following the same, the question is answered in favour ofthe revenue. _____________________________ JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO ___________________________________ JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Dated 6-7-2010.Dvs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO&HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN R.C.No.109 of 1997 (Order delivered by theHonourable Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao)Dated 6-7-2010. [1]1 (1999) 237 ITR 174