Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sree Rama Agricultural Poultry Farm - Court Judgment |
| Direct Taxation |
| Andhra Pradesh High Court |
| Aug-09-2001 |
| I.T.T. Appeal No. 80 of 2001 |
| S.R. Nayak and ;S. Ananda Reddy, JJ. |
| [2002]258ITR336(AP) |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 32 and 260A |
| Commissioner of Income-tax |
| Sree Rama Agricultural Poultry Farm |
| J.V. Prasad, Standing Counsel |
| None |
| Appeal dismissed |
.....- tribunal allowed 100% depreciation on ground that series of cages collectively constitute 'plant' - such finding of tribunal is on question of fact - appeal deserves to be dismissed as not involving any question of law.
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties..........the learned tribunal on appreciation of the judgment of this court in cit v. margadarsi chit fund (p.) ltd. : [1997]227itr646(ap) , in which it was held that bottles would constitute plant and, therefore, 100 per cent. depreciation could be allowed, allowed depreciation as claimed by the assessee. the finding recorded by the learned tribunal is essentially on a question of fact. the tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. although it is the stand of the revenue throughout that only a series of cages collectively constitute the 'plant', no evidence is placed before the tribunal or before this court to support the plea. 4. on the other hand, the ratio decidendi of the judgment in margadarsi chit fund (p.) ltd.'s case : [1997]227itr646(ap) , would squarely support the finding recorded by the learned tribunal. this appeal does not involve any question of law, much less a substantial question of law. 5. the appeal is accordingly dismissed. no costs.
S.R. Nayak, J.
1. This appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B' (for short, 'the Tribunal'), dated October 22, 1999, in I. T. A. No. 998/H of 1994.
2. The respondent-assessee is a partnership firm doing business in hatchery. The assessee-firm filed a return of income admitting for the assessment year 1989-90 a taxable income of Rs. 26,540 and agricultural income of Rs. 5,93,478. The assessment was computed on a total income of Rs. 1,45,540. The Assessing Officer while making the assessment allowed depreciation at 100 per cent. on cages worth Rs. 3,16,453.
3. The Commissioner of Income-tax revised that order on the ground that the assessment made by the Assessing Officer allowing 100 per cent. depreciation on cages is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, by virtue of the power conferred under Section 263 of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the judgment of this court in CIT v. Margadarsi Chit Fund (P.) Ltd. : [1997]227ITR646(AP) , in which it was held that bottles would constitute plant and, therefore, 100 per cent. depreciation could be allowed, allowed depreciation as claimed by the assessee. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is essentially on a question of fact. The Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. Although it is the stand of the Revenue throughout that only a series of cages collectively constitute the 'plant', no evidence is placed before the Tribunal or before this court to support the plea.
4. On the other hand, the ratio decidendi of the judgment in Margadarsi Chit Fund (P.) Ltd.'s case : [1997]227ITR646(AP) , would squarely support the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal. This appeal does not involve any question of law, much less a substantial question of law.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.