C.I.T., WB-III Calcutta v. M/s SICPA India Ltd
[Citation -2015-LL-0428-25]
| Citation | 2015-LL-0428-25 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | C.I.T., WB-III Calcutta |
| Respondent Name | M/s SICPA India Ltd. |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 28/04/2015 |
| Assessment Year | 1995-96 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | depreciation allowance • trial production |
| Bot Summary: | MR.M.P.AGARWAL,ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT MR.SOMAK BASU,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT The Court : The appeal has not yet been admitted only a Rule was issued on 2nd February, 2000. The subject matter of challenge is a judgment and order dated 5th August, 1999 pertaining to the assessment year 1995-1996. The 2 finding under challenge recorded by the learned Tribunal reads as follows; 8.6. Coming to the decision cited by the Ld.Sr.D.R., we find that in the case of Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. vs. C.I.T. the apex court held that the machinery must be used for the purpose of business which is actually carried on and the profits of which are assessable u/s.10. In our opinion, applying the same principle to the facts of the case, the assessee is entitled to the allowance. It further states that if the machinery has not at all been used at any time during the accounting year, no allowance can be claimed for depreciation, but we have also held that even if machineries are used for trial production, yet the assessee would be entitled to depreciation allowance, once the business is set up and for this there is no dispute because the A.O. has already allowed part of the expenses in respect of the undertaking. Mr.Basu, learned advocate, appearing for the assessee submitted that the view taken by the learned Tribunal is on the basis of 3 the judgment of the Apex Court and in any case, the view taken by the learned Tribunal is also in consonance with the view subsequently taken by this Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Union Carbide Ltd. Mr.Agarwal did not dispute the aforesaid fact. |