Court denies initial depreciation claim on cooperative stores building, distinguishing from canteen.

The court ruled against the assessee, denying the claim for initial depreciation on a cooperative stores building under section 32(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The court emphasized the distinction between a cooperative stores building and a canteen, rejecting the Tribunal's interpretation and siding with the Revenue's argument that the building did not qualify for depreciation. The court also found that a prior judgment rendered the third issue irrelevant. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Entitlement to initial depreciation on the cost of a cooperative stores building under section 32(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Entitlement to depreciation allowance on the cost of preparation and reproduction of technical information paid to a foreign collaborator.
3. Disallowance of a claim for deduction relating to the earth-mover division on an amortization basis.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with three main issues raised by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding depreciation and deduction claims. The court first addressed questions 2 and 3, which had been previously examined in a different case for the same parties. Referring to a prior judgment, the court declined to answer question 2 and stated that question 3 was no longer relevant for consideration due to relief obtained in a previous year. Moving on to question 1, the court examined the case of a cooperative stores building constructed by the assessee for its employees, claiming initial depreciation under section 32(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Officer had disallowed the claim, but the Tribunal accepted it. The court considered the arguments presented by both parties, where the Revenue contended that a cooperative stores building cannot be treated as a canteen, thus making the depreciation inadmissible. The court analyzed the provisions of section 32(1)(iv) and emphasized that the language used should be interpreted plainly without room for implication. It concluded that a cooperative stores building does not fall under the category of a canteen as specified in the Act, rejecting the Tribunal's interpretation. The court highlighted the distinction in purpose and use between a cooperative stores building and a canteen, emphasizing that the Tribunal had erred in its decision. Consequently, the court answered question 1 in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The court also directed the parties to bear their own costs in the circumstances of the cases.

---