Income Tax Case

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAAND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.121 of 2001 DATE: 27.06.2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax,Visakhapatnam. … Appellant And S. Vijaya Kumar … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A No.121 of 2001 JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal was admitted on 18.10.2001 on the following substantial questions of law. “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled toclaim depreciation @ 100% on the centering material, individualusage of which is very very remote? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ITAT suffers from perversity by reason of there being nomaterial placed before the appellate Tribunal to hold that each of theshuttering plate was used independently and individually by theassessee on the basis of functional test?” The learned Tribunal while dismissing the appeal obviously held that the assessee is entitled to 100% depreciation on the centering material. It appears that a Division Bench of this Court in a reference case No.116 of 1996 in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vijaya Enterprises[[1]] held that each item of shuttering material cannot be treated as one whole theshuttering material forming one plant eligible for 100% depreciation under theproviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. In other words, theDivision Bench so to say reversed the decision of the learned Tribunal. Hence, this appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Tribunal isaccordingly set aside. No costs. _____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 27.06.2013ES [1](2011) 332 ITR 235 (A.P.)