9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (6) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the I.T. Act, on the cost of the co-operative stores building ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation allowance on the cost of preparation and reproduction of drawings, specifications and other technical information paid to the foreign collaborator, on the basis that they are plant within the meaning of section 32 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in disallowing the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 27,64,811 relating to the earth-mover division on amortisation basis ? " We first proceed to examine questions Nos. 2 and 3 and then question No. 1. In I.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cepted the same and has allowed it as an admissible depreciation allowance, the correctness of which is disputed by the Revenue. Sri K. Srinivasan, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue, contends that on the plain language of s. 32(1)(iv) of the Act, " co-operative stores " cannot be treated as a " canteen " for which reason, the initial depreciation claimed on the construction of the same was inadmissible. Sri K. P. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, refuting the contention of Sri Srinivasan sought to support the view expressed by the Tribunal. In accepting the claim of the assessee, the Tribunal, referring to the dictionary meanings of " canteen ", has held that a " co-operative stores was a cante ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used." We have no doubt that if the Tribunal had kept before it these and other well settled rules of construction like where the language is plain, there is hardly any scope for interpretation and that, in the guise of interpretation, it is not open to a court to legislate and that there was no warrant for allowing initial depreciation on " co-operative stores building " as a canteen as claimed by the assessee. In the result, we answer the questions referred to us as hereunder : 1. Question No. 1 In the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 2. Question No. 2 Decline to answer. 3. Question No. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
