COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PURE BEVERAGES LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
ITR/127/1984HC GujaratGJHC24011801198415 April 1998Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered both questions in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Court referred to its earlier decision in I.T.R. No. 206 of 1985 dated 13.02.1998, where it had held that bottles and crates used by an assessee in its business were indeed "plant". Consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The Court further held that the entire purchase price of these bottles and containers was allowable as depreciation under section 32(1)(ii). The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pure Beverages Limited, claimed that containers, including bottles and crates used in its soft drink manufacturing and selling business, constituted "plant" under Section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee sought 100% depreciation on each container, as the cost of each was less than Rs. 750/-. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected this claim. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted it. The Revenue appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal has referred two questions of law to the High Court for its opinion.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in concluding that containers consisting of bottles and crates were "plant" within the meaning of section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in concluding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of containers consisting of bottles and crates? Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that bottles and crates used in its business were "plant" and, since the cost of each was below Rs. 750/-, 100% depreciation was allowable. The assessee relied on the Tribunal's decision. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's appeal to the Tribunal was dismissed, indicating disagreement with the assessee's claim. The specific arguments made by the Revenue before the High Court are not recorded, beyond the fact that it sought reference of these questions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43(3),Section 32,Section 32(1)(ii),Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 127 of 1984

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question 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?

-------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus PURE BEVERAGES LIMITED -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: Mr.Mihir Joshi for MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner MR JP SHAH for Respondent No. 1

--------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH Date of decision: 15/04/98

ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per R.K.Abichandani,J)

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred thefollowing questions for the opinion of this Court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. "

1.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in in coming to the conclusion that containers consisting of bottles and crates were "plant" within the meaning of section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?

2.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the asessee was entitled to depreciation undersection 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of containers consisting of bottles and crates ?"

2.

The assessee claimed before the I.T.O. that the containers consisting of bottles and crates constituted "plant" within the meaning of section 43(3) of the Act and since the cost of each bottle and crate was less than Rs. 750/- ., 100% depreciation was allowable for each container. The I.T.O. rejected the claim of the assessee. The C.I.T. (Appeals) however accepted it. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The question whether bottles and crates used by the assessee who was doing the business of manufacturing and selling soft drinks were eligible for depreciation allowances under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act was decided by us in I.T.R. No. 206 of 1985 on 13.2. 98. We have taken the view that bottles and crates of the assesee which were used for its business were "plant" and therefore, the assessee could claim depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Since the facts and points involved are same, we do not reproduce the facts from the record. Following our decision in I.T.R. no.206 of 1985, we hold that bottles and containers used by the assessee constitute "plant" and the entire purchase price thereof wasallowable as depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Both the questions referred to us are therefore, answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

... ***darji

[[

[[

More judgments on Section 43(3)

All 50 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →