2010 (4) TMI 101 - HC - Income Tax

Reassessment u/s 147 validity thereof 100% deprecation on bottles held that - 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. - 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

Summary

Issues:
1. Change in the name of the assessee due to a merger with another entity.
2. Appeal by the revenue against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment year 1992-1993.
3. Validity of re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Allowability of 100% depreciation on leased assets costing less than Rs 5,000.

Analysis:
1. The respondent/assessee applied for a change in the name due to a merger with another entity, which was allowed by the court, and the amended memo of parties was taken on record.
2. The revenue appealed against the ITAT order for the assessment year 1992-1993, proposing substantial questions of law. The court noted that the issue of 100% depreciation on leased assets costing less than Rs 5,000 had been settled in previous decisions. The court modified the ITAT's order to allow only 50% depreciation as the assets were used for less than 180 days, contrary to the requirement for 100% depreciation.
3. The court did not admit the proposed questions regarding the validity of re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 as the issue of depreciation on leased assets had already been settled in previous decisions. The court emphasized that the depreciation rate depended on the number of days the assets were used in a year.
4. The judgment disposed of the appeal by modifying the ITAT's order to allow only 50% depreciation on the leased assets due to their usage for less than 180 days, in line with the precedents cited during the proceedings.