COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CAMA HOTELS LTD.

O/TAXAP/1394/2006 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1394 of 2006

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER

================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s) Versus CAMA HOTELS LTD.....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER

Page 1 of 5

O/TAXAP/1394/2006 JUDGMENT Date : 02/12/2014

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. This Tax Appeal u/s. 260A of the Income­tax Act,   1961   is   filed   against   the   order   dated 23.12.2005,   passed   in   ITA   No.1494/Ahd/2000   for the Assessment Year 1990­91, whereby, the appeal filed   by   the   Revenue   was   dismissed,   sustaining the order passed by the CIT(A). 2. Briefly   stated,   the   facts   are   that   the assessee   company   is   a   private   limited   company, engaged   in   running   a   hotel,   restaurant   and catering   services. While   finalizing   the assessment u/s.143(3), the Assessing Officer has allowed   depreciation   @   20%   on   swimming   pool instead of 33.33 as claimed by the assessee.  The assessee claimed depreciation on swimming pool @ 33.33% treating it as plant and machinery. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the A.O.,   the   assessee   has   preferred   appeal   before Page 2 of 5

O/TAXAP/1394/2006 JUDGMENT CIT(A) and CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal, allowing depreciation @ 33.33% on swimming pool, treating   it   as   plant   and   machinery.     Being aggrieved   by   the   said   order,   the   Revenue   has preferred   appeal   before   ITAT   vide   ITA No.1494/Ahd/2000. By   impugned   order   dated 23.12.2005, the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the   appeal   preferred   by   the   Revenue   and   has allowed   the   claim   of   the   assessee   and depreciation @ 33.33% was allowed as against the 20%   allowed   by   the   Assessing   Officer.     Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides.  The appeal was admitted vide order dated 28.06.2007, which reads as under: “Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The   appeal   is   admitted   in   terms   of   the following questions:­ “(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right   in   law   and   on   facts   in confirming the order passed by the CIT (A)   holding   that   the   assessee   was entitled   to   depreciation   on   swimming pool at the rate of 33.33% treating it Page 3 of 5

O/TAXAP/1394/2006 JUDGMENT as plant and machinery?” Issue notice to the other side. Paper book be filed within three  months. List the appeal for final hearing after three months.” 5. The issue raised in this appeal is already concluded by a decision of this Court rendered in Tax Appeal No.26 of 1995 decided on 05.12.2005. The   relevant   paragraphs   No.3   to   5   of   the   said order reads under: “3. Mr.M.J.Shah, learned advocate appearing on   behalf   of   the   respondent­assessee,   has conceded to the position that in so far as question   No.1   is   concerned,   it   stands answered   against   the   assessee   in   light   of decision in case of Commissioner of Income­ tax Vs. Anand Theatres, [2000] 244 ITR 192 (SC). 4. Hence, question No.1 is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 5.

Similarly,

Mrs.M.M.Bhatt,

learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant­Revenue, has accepted the position that   issue   raised   by   question   No.2   stands answered   against   the   Revenue   by   decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income­tax, [1997] 224 ITR 677 (SC).” 6. Since the issue is already concluded vide the judgment rendered in the above decision, we are not   assigning   elaborate   reasons   for   disposing Page 4 of 5

O/TAXAP/1394/2006 JUDGMENT this appeal.  Accordingly, the question of law is answered   in   negative   i.e.   in   favour   of   the Revenue and against the assessee.  The appeal is allowed accordingly. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) ANKIT Page 5 of 5