Plant status for depreciation upheld where factual finding was supported by precedent and no substantial question of law arose.

Cages used in hatchery operations were treated as plant for depreciation purposes because the Tribunal's conclusion rested on factual appreciation supported by precedent, including the principle that bottles may qualify as plant. As no evidence dislodged that finding, the record disclosed no legal error or debatable issue requiring interference under section 260A. The appeal therefore did not raise a substantial question of law, and the Tribunal's allowance of full depreciation remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's cages used in the hatchery business constituted plant so as to qualify for 100 per cent depreciation, and whether the Tribunal's finding on that question gave rise to any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The Tribunal had accepted the assessee's claim for full depreciation on the cages by treating them as plant. That conclusion was based on appreciation of facts and was supported by the principle applied in the cited precedent holding bottles to be plant for depreciation purposes. No evidence was placed to dislodge the Tribunal's factual finding. The record did not disclose any legal error or debatable legal issue warranting interference under section 260A.

Conclusion: The cages were treated as plant for depreciation purposes, and the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the assessee's entitlement to depreciation as allowed by the Tribunal remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A factual finding that an asset constitutes plant for depreciation purposes, when supported by precedent and uncontroverted evidence, does not raise a substantial question of law under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

---