TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds 15% Depreciation Rate for Diesel Set, High Court Affirms Authority</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Transpek Industry Ltd.</h3> The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation at 15 per cent. for a diesel generating set, part of the same machinery used in the ... 'Whether, Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to allow depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent. on diesel generating set?' - Tribunal has taken note of the fact that depreciation had been allowed on the same machinery at the rate of 15% to the assessee for all the preceding assessment years and also subsequent years. In our opinion, in light of this peculiar factual position, it is not necessary to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal and we hold that the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent. on the diesel generating set. Reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 concerning whether the Tribunal was correct 'in directing the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to allow depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent. on diesel generating set.' The assessee claimed depreciation at 15% on the diesel generating set as 'part and parcel' of other plant and machinery which contacted corrosive chemicals; the Assessing Officer granted 15%. The Commissioner, exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 263, reduced the rate to 10% treating each assessment as 'distinct and independent.' The Tribunal, relying on precedents of various Benches and noting that depreciation at 15% had been allowed to the assessee in preceding and subsequent assessment years (and that such generating sets were elsewhere treated as 30% but the assessee had restricted claim to 15%), directed allowance at 15%. Given this peculiar factual position and consistency of prior treatment, the High Court held the Tribunal was justified in law in directing allowance at 15%, answered the question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
