9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (11) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, higher rate of depreciation i.e., 15% which had been provided in the IT Rules was available to the assessee. In support of its claim the assessee filed a certificate from its French collaborators and also gave details of various process material involved in the manufacture of graphite electrodes and the chemical analysis of the same. It also detailed the effect of the process material and the gases/fumes generated during the course of manufacture on its plant and machinery. The assessee also brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer the case of M/s Graphite India Ltd. Calcutta where depreciation @ 15% had been allowed. The assessee also gave the ITO the permanent account number along with the address of the Calcutta ITO assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee was entitled to higher rate of depreciation i.e., 15%. 7. Learned Departmental Representative broadly adopted the line of reasoning taken by he ITO. He argued that the process material should be 100% corrosive to entitle the assessee to higher rate of depreciation. He argued that small percentage of corrosive chemicals like sulphur present in the process material did not result in corrosion. Developing his arguments on the line of the judgment of the Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Saraswati Industries Syndicate (1981) 23 CTR (P H) 6 : (1982) 136 ITR 758 (P H), the Departmental Representative submitted that the gases/fumes generated in the process did not come into contact with the main plant and machinery. He argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re also not impressed with the argument of the learned Departmental Representative that the chemical should be 100% corrosive to entitle the assessee a higher rate of depreciation. In our view, even a small percentage of corrosive chemicals contained in the process material, as in the case of the assessee, would be corrosive to the plant and machinery of the assessee. We are, therefore, of the view that the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be sustained. Thus, the Departmental appeal is dismissed. 10. ITA No. 15: This Departmental appeal is against the order of the CIT(A) holding that interest charged under s. 217(1A) by the Assessing Officer was not justified. The Assessing Officer levied interest of Rs. 2,67,212 under s. 271(1A). The CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
