TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1935 (12) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is is a reference under Sec. 66 of the Income tax Act. The non-applicant assessee is the Central Provinces Manganese Ore Company Ltd., Nagpur, through its agent and General Manager, Mr. Bartlett, and he objects to the disallowance of a sum of ₹ 9,800 as depreciation on the part of the Company's machinery which remained idle during the account year in question. Owing to depressed trade, p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oners' 'business' being the sale as well as the mining of manganese ore and in view of the fact that part of the taxed profits arose from sale of stocks of ore mined previously to the account year but in the winning of which the machinery was instrumental, this same machinery should not be considered as being used for the purpose of "business" and the depreciation on it allow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld allow an assessee to claim depreciation for machinery, which although suitable for the business, had never been brought into use at all; and also to go on claiming depreciation for years together without using the machinery, provided only that the accumulated stocks were being gradually disposed of. The assessee would distinguish the case of N.D. Radhakishen & Sons v. Commissioner of Income Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is also a case of this Court, Bhikaji Venkatesh v. The Commissioner of Income tax, Central and United Provinces which goes against the assessee's contention, and he has not been able to produce any other case in his favour. 3. No doubt on the above view, as depreciation is allowed only for a number of years, the effect of the machinery lying idle might be that full allowance of depreciation ....