COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.PURE DRINKS (NEW DELHI ) L

PDF · subscribers
ITR/225/1999HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038687199913 November 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, while considering the referred question of law, noted that this very issue had been previously adjudicated by the Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax,(Central) Ludhiana Vs. Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd., ITR No.229 of 1999, decided on 3.11.2006. In that precedent, the Court had answered the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Applying the ratio decidendi of the earlier judgment, the High Court held that the bottles and shells, when treated as 'Plant', are indeed entitled to depreciation at 100% under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the question referred to the Court is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana (Revenue) has filed an Income Tax Reference (ITR) No. 225 of 1999 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The reference arises from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, in I.T.A. No. 1185/Chandi/1989, concerning the assessment year 1985-86. The dispute pertains to the classification of bottles and shells as 'Plant' and their eligibility for 100% depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue is challenging the ITAT's decision in favour of the assessee, M/s Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd.

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 bottles and shells, classified as 'Plant', are entitled to depreciation at 100% under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The ITAT held that bottles and shells are eligible for 100% depreciation as 'Plant'. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue disputes the ITAT's finding and seeks to challenge the eligibility for 100% depreciation on bottles and shells classified as 'Plant'.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(1)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.R No.225 of 1999 Date of decision:13.11.2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana ...Petitioner Versus M/S Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd.,New Delhi ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Dr.N.L.Sharda, Advocate for the Revenue. Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate. ****

JUDGMENT Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh arising out of its order passed in I.T.A.No.1185/Chandi/1989, in respect of the assessment year 1985- 86. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the bottles and shells as 'Plant' are entitled to depreciation at 100% under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?”

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 →