2007 (6) TMI 138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....00% depreciation is available only on "Gas cylinders including valves and regulators", under the following facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The relevant assessment year is 1996-97.  The assessee company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of chemicals.  Even though the assessment for the year 1996-97 was completed on 18.3.1999, the same was re-opened by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act.  During the re-assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation on Chlorine containers claimed by the assessee at 100% and treated these containers as normal plant and machinery and allowed depreciation only at 25%, while the assessee claimed 100% depreciation placing reliance on Item III (3) (v)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 21.3.2002. 4.  Against which, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who by order dated 23.7.2004 confirmed the order of the assessing officer, which necessitated the assessee to prefer a further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which, following a decision of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Goyal MG Gases Ltd., reported in (2006) 201 CTR 342, allowed the appeal and granted 100% depreciation.  Hence, the above appeal. 5.  Concededly, there is no dispute with regard to the following material facts:- (i) that the assessee is a manufacturer and seller of chemicals; (ii) that the assessee claimed depreciation of 100% for the larger con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nguage. 7. In a case where the statutory provision is plain and unambiguous, the Court shall not interpret the same in a different manner, only because of harsh consequences arising therefrom; and it is well known that the Court can iron out the creases but it cannot change the texture of the fabric, cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous, cannot add or substract words to a statute or read something into it which is not there and cannot rewrite or recast legislation, vide NASIRUDDIN v. SITA RAM AGARWAL [2003] 2 SCC 577.  There should be a literal rule of interpretation of a statute, which is the first and foremost principle of interpretation and where the word....