THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN vs. HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., WILLINGDON ISL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the first question of law concerning the adjustment of depreciation for arriving at the written down value of assets in the tea business was no longer res integra. It was covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Doom Dooma India Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 392(SC), which was decided against the Revenue. Consequently, the Court found that nothing survived for adjudication on this issue. Regarding the second question, the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) submitted that he was not pressing it. In light of these submissions, the Court concluded that nothing further remained in the appeal and dismissed it at the admission stage. No specific finding was recorded on the second question as it was not pressed.
What were the facts?
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The appeal challenges the Tribunal's decision regarding the written down value (WDV) of assets in the tea business. The core dispute revolves around the extent of depreciation to be adjusted for arriving at the WDV. The procedural history indicates the appeal is at the admission stage before the High Court of Kerala.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide the following questions of law: 1. (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that for arriving at the written down value of the assets in the tea business, depreciation to the extent of 40% only was to be adjusted as the depreciation actually allowed. (b) Whether, the Tribunal is factually right in upholding the contention that depreciation actually allowed was only 40% and is not the finding wrong legally and factually. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the order of the Tribunal on the question of depreciation against the principle laid down by the High Court in 246 ITR 278 and against the decision of the Honourable High Court in ITA 102/99 decided on 05.07.2006? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee (Harrison Malayalam Ltd.) contended that depreciation actually allowed was only 40%. The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's arguments beyond this implied acceptance of the Tribunal's finding. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that only 40% depreciation was to be adjusted for arriving at the WDV. The Revenue also argued that the Tribunal's order was against established High Court precedents.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, CJ. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The appeal is preferred raising the following questions of law:
“1. (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that for arriving at the written down value of the assets in the tea business, depreciation to the extent of 40% only was to be adjusted as the depreciation actually allowed. (b) Whether, the Tribunal is factually right in upholding the contention that depreciation actually allowed was only 40% and is not the finding wrong legally and factually.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the order of the Tribunal on the question of depreciation- i) against the principle laid down by the High Court in 246 ITR 278; ii) against the decision of the Honourable High Court in ITA 102/99 decided on 05.07.2006?” In so far as the first question is concerned, admittedly the issue is no more res integra. It is covered by the directions in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Doom Dooma India Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 392(SC) and decided against the Revenue. In view of the said decision, nothing survives for adjudication by this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the second question. In the circumstances nothing survives in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ttb
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
