COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Private Limited

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/805/2006HC TelanganaHBHC01057393200603 December 2013Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal followed a previous High Court order on a similar issue. The appeal was disposed of in line with that precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in poultry farming, claimed depreciation at 25% on poultry sheds, treating them as 'plant'. The Assessing Officer reclassified them as 'building' and allowed depreciation at 10%.

What were the issues?

Whether poultry sheds used for poultry and hatchery business should be treated as 'plant' for higher depreciation or 'building' for lower depreciation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.805 OF 2006

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram)

1.

This Income Tax Tribunal Appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), against the order dated 26.04.2006 in I.T.A. No.827/Hyd/2004 on the file of the Income Tax Tribunal, Hyderabad.

2.

The following substantial question of law was raised in this appeal for consideration. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in directing grant of depreciation at the rate 25% by treating the structures erected for poultry and hatchery business as plant?”

3.

At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent company is engaged in the business of poultry farming. It has been filing its return of income regularly. The said company has certain sheds to keep the birds. The appellant considered the poultry sheds as ‘plant’ and depreciation @ 25% was claimed and the same was also allowed by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the assessments for the three years were reopened only on the issue of depreciation to be allowed on the poultry sheds. The Assessing Officer has considered the poultry sheds to be ‘building’ for the purposes of deprecation and, accordingly, allowed depreciation @ 10% per annum. The respondent relied on a decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ramdev Tiles Vs. CIT, but the same was not accepted by the assessing officer. As no detailed discussion is available in the order for such disagreement, the respondent filed appeal on that single ground against the very

reopening of assessment for all the above three years, but the important issue, which remains is regarding the claim of depreciation only. The main controversy that arise in this case for consideration is, whether the poultry shed should be treated as plant, thereby allowing the assessee company a higher rate of depreciation as applicable to plant and not the rate of depreciation as applicable to building?

Both the learned counsel have fairly submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is covered to be disposed of in view of the order passed by this Court in R.C.No.135 of 1997 and batch, dated 03.11.2010.

Following the aforesaid order passed by this Court in R.C.No.135 of 1997 and batch and for the reasons recorded therein, this appeal also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions pending in this Appeal, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

_________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM 03.12.2013 bv

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →