Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S G.E.Capital Services India on 30 April, 2010
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 30.04.2010
+ ITA 957/2006
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
- versus -
M/S G.E.CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:-
For the Appellant : Ms P. L. Bansal
For the Respondent : Mr M. S. Syali, Sr Advocate with
Mr Pratyush Jain
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
CM 758/2010
The counsel for the parties are present. The respondent /
assessee has moved this application for change in the name of the assessee
on account of a merger of the assessee with G.E. Capital Services India.
The application is allowed.
The amended memo of parties is taken on record.
ITA 957/2006
1. The revenue is in appeal against the order dated 11.11.2005
passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 1207/Del/2000
pertaining to the assessment year 1992-1993.
2. The revenue has proposed six questions, which, according to
them, are substantial questions of law and need to be considered in this
appeal. Proposed questions (a) and (b) pertain to the validity of the re-
assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In
this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent / assessee submits that
this issue may not be gone into in the present appeal for the reason that the
issues on merits, which are comprised in the proposed questions (d) and (e),
have already been settled by several decisions including decisions of this
Court in the case of CIT v. Prem Nath Monga Bottlers (P) Ltd: 226 ITR
864 and JCIT v. Anatronics Genral Company (P) Limited: 247 ITR 25
(Del). The question which had arisen in those decisions was whether one
bottle was to be treated as an individual asset or the entire bulk of bottles
was to be treated as one asset for the purposes of computing depreciation.
This Court held that each bottle is to be treated as an individual asset and
since the price of each bottle was less than Rs 5,000/-, 100% depreciation
was allowable. Thus, insofar as the question of whether 100% depreciation
was allowable on the leased bottles, the same stands covered by the
aforesaid decisions of this Court. We may point out that in Prem Nath
Monga Bottlers (P) Ltd (supra), reference was also made to a decision of
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT v. Sri Krishna
Bottlers Private Limited: 175 ITR 154 (AP). Consequently, the proposed
questions (d) and (e) which read as under:-
(d) Whether ITAT was correct in law in allowing depreciation
to the assessee @ 100% on leased assets, being each asset
costing less than Rs 5,000/- when assessee was engaged in
the business of leasing?
(e) Whether the depreciation is to be allowed to the assessee
@ 100% or @ 25% as the assessee was engaged in the
business of leasing and the assets, being each item costing
less than Rs 5,000/- were given on lease in a single lot?
need not to be admitted for the consideration of this Court inasmuch as the
issue already stands settled and concluded by virtue of the aforesaid
decisions. However, the learned counsel for the revenue pointed out that
100% depreciation on the said bottles would be allowable only if the bottles
were used for more than 180 days in the year in question. The bottles
involved in the present case were used for less than 180 days and, therefore,
only 50% depreciation was allowable in the year in question. This
submission is not controverted by Mr Syali, who appears on behalf of the
respondent/ assessee.
3. Consequently, although we have not formed any substantial
question of law for consideration inasmuch as the issues stand settled, in
view of the fact that the said bottles were used for less than 180 days, only
50% depreciation would be allowable and to this extent, the Tribunal's
order stands modified. The other proposed questions do not arise for
consideration in this appeal.
Consequently, the appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K. JAIN, J
APRIL 30, 2010
SR
