9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort the Act). 3. The Assessee claimed depreciation on a biogas plant and that was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the plant had not started giving the end product, that is, biogas during the relevant previous year but only from the subsequent accounting year. According to the Assessing Officer, by claiming depreciation in the assessment year 1990-91, the Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars for reducing its tax liability and was, therefore, liable to be penalized. 4. The Commissioner reversed the Assessing Officer by holding that the Assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars. At best, it was a case of rejection of the Assessee's explanation for a claim of depreciation and, therefore, the case would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee from claiming depreciation. 9. On the above reasoning, the Tribunal accepted the view of the Commissioner and set aside the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer. According to learned counsel for the Revenue before us, the imposition of penalty was fully justified since the Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars and was liable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. We are not in a position to agree with learned counsel for the Revenue. In the first instance, it must be noted that the business of the Assessee was not that of manufacture of biogas. It was a distillery and the Assessee was required by law to treat the effluent before discharging it. It just so transpires that the technology used by the Assessee for treatment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt considered the expression 'used for the purpose of business or profession' as appearing in Section 32 of the Act and concluded that the claim of depreciation is not dependent on the 'actual' use or the asset being 'put to' use. The expression has to be interpreted in the ordinary grammatical sense, as in common parlance and not in the legal or technical sense. 15. This Court had occasion to consider the expression as appearing in Section 32 of the Act in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Refrigeration and Allied Industries Ltd., [2000] 113 TAXMAN 103. This Court noted that even though the Supreme Court had left the question of active or passive user open in the Liquidators of Pursa Ltd., but in Machinery Manufacturers Corporation Ltd. v. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
