https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206356 The court ruled against the assessee in R. C. No. 116 of 1996, favoring the Revenue. The appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Visakhapatnam (I. T. T. A. No. 20 of 1999), was allowed, while the appeals by M/s. Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd. (I. T. T. A. Nos. 124 and 149 of 2005) were dismissed. The court determined that each component of centering and shuttering material cannot be treated as a separate plant eligible for 100% depreciation, considering them as one integrated unit for depreciation purposes. en-us Wed, 19 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206356 The court ruled against the assessee in R. C. No. 116 of 1996, favoring the Revenue. The appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Visakhapatnam (I. T. T. A. No. 20 of 1999), was allowed, while the appeals by M/s. Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd. (I. T. T. A. Nos. 124 and 149 of 2005) were dismissed. The court determined that each component of centering and shuttering material cannot be treated as a separate plant eligible for 100% depreciation, considering them as one integrated unit for depreciation purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206356