High Court favors assessee on depreciation for dies, moulds & civil works under Income-tax Act

The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee in a case concerning depreciation on dies and moulds, emphasizing their integral role in machinery and production processes. The court held that depreciation on dies and moulds falls under Section 31 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Additionally, the court allowed depreciation on civil works related to the Reverse Osmosis Plant and TET Plant, considering them essential structures for business operations. The court aligned its decision with legal precedents and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the assessee's entitlement to depreciation on both issues.

---

---

Issues:
1. Depreciation on dies and moulds.
2. Depreciation on civil works related to Reverse Osmosis Plant and TET Plant.

Depreciation on Dies and Moulds:
The appeal challenged the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the entitlement to depreciation at 100% on dies and moulds. The High Court referred to a previous decision in a similar case and concluded that dies and moulds, being integral parts of machinery, are not independent entities but essential components for production. The court emphasized that when dies wear out, the machinery cannot function correctly, necessitating replacement. Citing legal precedent, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the claim for depreciation on dies and moulds falls under Section 31 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the first substantial question of law was answered against the Revenue.

Depreciation on Civil Works for Reverse Osmosis Plant and TET Plant:
Regarding the second substantial question of law, the Tribunal highlighted previous favorable decisions for the assessee in similar cases. The court noted that the Revenue did not contest the claim for depreciation on civil works related to the Reverse Osmosis Plant and TET Plant in earlier appeals. Referring to a Supreme Court case involving depreciation on specially designed ponds, the court emphasized that structures essential for business operations qualify as 'plant' for depreciation purposes. The Assessing Officer had limited depreciation to 10% without providing a rationale. However, the CIT(A) considered the civil works integral to the plant's functioning and directed the allowance of depreciation at the same rates as the relevant plants. The High Court concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision, aligning it with the Supreme Court's precedent. Consequently, the second substantial question of law was also answered against the Revenue.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decisions on both issues and ruling in favor of the assessee. The court emphasized the importance of considering integral components for production processes as eligible for depreciation, in line with legal precedents and the interpretation of 'plant' for depreciation purposes.

---