THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AMRITSAR vs. M/S PARTAP STEEL ROLLING MILLS AMRITSAR

ITR/389/1995HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01032459199524 October 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 Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the CIT(Appeals) allowing depreciation on machinery at 15% for all divisions except the gases division. The Court noted that the revenue's counsel did not dispute that this issue had been addressed by the High Court in previous judgments, specifically citing ITR No. 8 of 1993 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar v. M/s. B.D.Aggarwal & Sons, Amritsar) decided on 26.4.2006 and ITR No. 183 of 1987 (CIT Jalandhar v. M/s. Kakkar Complex Steel P.Limited) decided on 10.2.2005. Based on these precedents, the reference was answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The operative direction was to dispose of the reference accordingly.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Partap Steel Rolling Mills, Amritsar, claimed depreciation on plant and machinery in its Head Office Furnace Division, Concast Division, and Gases Division at 15%, treating them as machine tools. The Assessing Officer allowed depreciation at 10%. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the assessee's claim for depreciation at 15% for all divisions except the Gases Division. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). The Revenue has filed a reference to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh concerning the assessment year 1983-84.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(Appeals), Amritsar, allowing depreciation on Machinery @ 15% in respect of all the divisions except gases division? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the machinery in question qualified for depreciation at 15% as machine tools. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel did not dispute that the issue had been previously decided by the High Court in similar cases.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ITR No.389 of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No.389 of 1995 Date of decision:24.10.2006 Commissioner of income Tax, Amritsar ....Petitioner versus M/s Partap Steel Rolling Mills, Amritsar ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Dr. N.L.Sharda, Advocate, for the revenue.

JUDGMENT: Following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short, 'the Tribunal') arising out of its order dated 20.10.1993 in ITA No.858(ASR)/1989, for the assessment year 1983-84:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(Appeals), Amritsar allowing depreciation on Machinery @ 15% in respect of all the divisions except gases division?”

The assessee claimed depreciation of plant and machinery in Head Office Furnace Division, Concast Division and Gases Division at the rate of 15% treating the same as machine tools. The Assessing Officer allowed the same at the rate of 10%. The Commissioner of income

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →