Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S J.K. Synthetics Ltd.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3817 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   ITR 21 OF 1992

%                                            Date of Decision: August 16,2010


COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                                    ..... Appellant

                              Through      Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate

                        Versus

M/S J.K. SYNTHETICS LTD.                                     ..... Respondent

                              Through      Mr. P.N. Monga, Advocate with
                                           Mr. Maua Monga, Advocate
                                                 .

CORAM :-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?

A.K. SIKRI, J (Oral)

1. The question is as to whether the assessee should have been

allowed depreciation @ 15% on plants used in manufacturing of cement and

packaging of cement etc. or @ 10% as done by the Assessing Officer. The

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the depreciation @ 15% as was

done in the previous years as well. This is clear from the following:-

"Here we find that this issue was considered by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case in earlier year. The CIT (Appeals) has allowed depreciation at the rate of 15% on the plant and machinery of the assessee on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1983-84, in I.T.A. Nos. 715 (del) of 85 and 795 (Del) of 87. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for".

2. Mr. Monga informs that in respect of assessment year 1975-76 the

reference was returned unanswered in ITR 286/1987 because of

insubstantial tax effect. This case relates to the assessment year 1977-78

and, therefore, same reasons apply for this assessment year as well.

3. Accordingly, we return this reference answered.

(A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE

(REVA KHETRAPAL) JUDGE AUGUST 16, 2010 skb