9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1961, as it stood prior to April 1, 1984, it had been provided that the initial depreciation granted to hotel buildings under that clause !hall not be deducted in determining the written down value for the purposes of clause (ii). That clause (ii) provided for depreciation at the prescribed percentage of the written down value of the assets on which depreciation was allowable. By the Finance Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h on the part of the Assessing Officer, the appellate authority agreeing with the assessee held that the deduction of the initial depreciation from the value of the asset for the purpose of determining the written down value was required to be made only on and from the assessment year 1984-85, and that initial depreciation that had been granted in earlier assessment years which were not required t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the written down value for the purpose of allowing normal depreciation at the prescribed rate. That benefit was taken away with effect from April 1, 1984. However, the depreciation allowable on the asset in the assessment year 1984-85 was to be with reference to the written down value as it existed at the commencement of the assessment year. The deletion of the provision permitting exclusion of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had obtained the benefit of initial depreciation in the assessment years prior to April 1, 1984. That initial depreciation cannot be subtracted from the value of the building for determining the written down value at the commencement of the assessment year 1984-85 and the depreciation allowed in that year calculated with reference to the reduced figure. The depreciation to be allowed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l building cannot be regarded as a plant for the purpose of depreciation. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anand Theatres [2000] 244 ITR 192 held that the hotel building cannot be regarded as a plant. The view of the Tribunal that the assessee's hotel building should be treated as plant for the purpose of depreciation is plainly erroneous. This question as to whether the hotel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
