TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (4) TMI 190
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....am, a registered firm, for asst. yr. 1975-76. 2. The assessee is running a cotton mill. The first ground relates to the claim for depreciation on the enhanced value of the mill assets as taken over by the assessee. This was allowed by the first appellate authority following the decision in the same assessee's case for earlier years. The relief allowed by the first appellate authority for this yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... representative for the assessee, however, relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in J.K. Sunthetics Ltd. vs. CIT (2) which has held that the basis is the number of days worked by the concern and not each item of machinery. Though there are differing views on the subject and there is no decision of the Madras High Court, the issue is not really complicated. The Board's Circular No. F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppears, prima-facie to be not only liberal but also to be correct. In this view, it is not necessary for us to go into the contrary decisions of the High Court which have dealt with the question of interpretation of the words used under the rules and not the Board's circular, since Board's circular was not relied upon by the tax payers in those cases. We also find that the issue was decided in the....