Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2015 (2) TMI 804

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the higher rate of depreciation of 10 per cent. on 'creche building' to the assessee for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1985-86 ?                2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the assessee's claim of liability for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 under the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1979 ?                3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ving the letter dated May 4, 1984, from the authorities that the assessee had violated the provisions of the DPCO and as such they could proceed to take action for contravention of the same. Further, by letter dated January 6, 1987, the assessee was informed that it had over charged the prices of drugs manufactured by it and directed the assessee to deposit the excess amount in the DPEA. The assessee disputed the allegations. But, however, as a matter of precaution paid certain amounts which was not accepted by the Government. The assessee approached the High Court and finally the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 55.49 lakhs which in fact the assessee had paid by May 11, 1990. The view of the authority was that the provision which is mad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mployed in the business or profession of the assessee. The courts have extended the scope of factory building to sports pavilions and workers, canteens, roads inside the housing colonies, drainage and compound walls of petrol pumps, fencing, culverts and drainage within a factory compound. All these assets are held to be entitled at a high rate of depreciation than that were allowed on the simple buildings. 8. It is not in dispute that the creche building is situated within the same compound of the factory where the assessee carries on manufacturing activity. For the purpose of increasing efficiency, productivity of the women employees were engaged in the factory, creche is created by the assessee in a separate building. In other words, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. Liability under the provisions of the DPCO is fastened on the assessee the moment the sales are made at a price exceeding the price prevailing on the date of introduction of the DPCO. Merely because the assessee though challenged the liability by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Mumbai, the liability itself does not get obliterated as the liability is in fact on account of a statutory control order issued in exercise of the powers vested in the Government under the Essential Commodities Act. In fact, the Tribunal had taken the same view and had come to a conclusion after detailed analysis of the provisions of the DPCO that the liability imposed on the assessee with respect to excess amounts collected over and above the prices ....