9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to 100 per cent. depreciation of centering sheets as per the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act on the ground that they are individual plant/machinery?" The respondent-assessee is a company, which is carrying on the business of leasing out its assets. It has purchased centering sheets during the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 and claimed the cost of the centering sheets as deduction by way of 100 per cent. depreciation under the first proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act on the ground that each centering sheet constitutes an individual plant/machinery costing far less than Rs. 5,000. The Assessing Officer held that ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the cages purchased, on the ground that each cage was a separate plant valued at less than Rs. 750, when the cages were not separate but one continuous fabricated unit in which partitions were made for a number of birds to be housed in each compartment and the High Court held that cages were not used as independent units but were utilised by the assessee for fabrication of bigger compartments to have a larger number of birds with common facilities of lighting, feeding, watering, etc., and they became a part of the bigger plant and they cannot be termed as plant to individually qualify for the depreciation allowance as claimed by the assessee. In the present case, centering sheets are separate sheets and hence the above decision does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50. The proviso would be rendered futile if all similar units of plant, the individual value of which is Rs. 750 are to be grouped together and taken as one single unit for the purpose of calculating depreciation. The proviso does not refer to the number of units but refers to the value of the individual unit and once it is found that the value of the individual unit which could be regarded as a plant, is below Rs. 750 it would qualify for 100 per cent. depreciation as provided in the proviso. The task of determining the circumstances in which the proviso is applicable is thus quite simple. One has to first identify the plant or machinery. If the asset claimed by the assessee as plant and machinery is found to be such, the only question t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e used varies. A single individual centering sheet may be sufficient for a particular work in the process of construction of a building and hence it would constitute a plant and if the value of it is less than Rs. 5,000, the assessee is entitled to claim 100 per cent. depreciation' as per the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Learned senior counsel for the respondent/assessee contended that the finding of the Tribunal is on a question of fact and no substantial question of law is involved for adjudication and relied on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Sree Rama Agricultural Poultry Farm [2002] 258 ITR 336. It is true that the finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal that each centering sheet is a plant is es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
