COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA vs. MOHAN BOTTLING CO (P) LTD NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITR/220222/1999HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038681199923 November 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ITAT was right in law in holding that the bottles and shells of the assessee were a 'plant' and entitled to depreciation at 100% under the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This decision was based on the revenue's concession that the issue had already been decided against them by this Court in a previous case, Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Vs. M/s Pure Drinks Pvt. Ltd. The ratio decidendi is that where a legal issue has been consistently decided by the High Court, and the revenue does not contest it, the same principle will be applied. The question referred to the Court is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. No specific operative directions were issued beyond answering the reference.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) passed an order on May 21, 1993, in ITA Nos. 1097, 1098, and 1321/88 concerning assessment years 1980-81 to 1982-83. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana, is the petitioner (revenue), and Mohan Bottling Co. (P) Ltd., New Delhi, is the respondent (assessee). The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh was asked to decide a referred question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The revenue's counsel did not dispute the issue, acknowledging it had been decided against the revenue by a previous High Court order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the bottles and shells of the assessee were a 'plant' and entitled to depreciation at 100% under the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue's counsel did not dispute the issue referred to the Court. They acknowledged that the issue had been decided against the revenue by a prior order of the High Court dated April 19, 2006, in I.T.R. No.82 of 1988, Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Vs. M/s Pure Drinks Pvt. Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(1)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

**** I.T.R. No.220-222 of 1999 Date of Decision:23.11.2006 Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana .....Petitioner Vs. Mohan Bottling Co. (P) Ltd., S.Mohan Singh Building, Connaught Lane, New Delhi

.....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the respondent. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. The following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court arising out of order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in I.T.A. Nos.1097, 1098 and 1321/88 dated 21.5.1993 in respect of assessment years 1980-81 to 1982- 83:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the bottles and shells of the assessee were a `plant' and entitled to depreciation at 100% under the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?” Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute that issue referred to above has been decided against the revenue vide order of this Court dated 19.4.2006 in I.T.R. No.82 of 1988- Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Vs. M/s Pure Drinks Pvt. Ltd. In view of the above, the question referred to above is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE November 23, 2006 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) renu JUDGE

More judgments on Section 32(1)(ii)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32(1)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →