2014 (9) TMI 1100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed common grounds of appeal in all the three years. 3. Ground No.1 is against the disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery in all the three years as under:- Assessment Year Amount 2007-08 Rs. 53,57,552/- 2008-09 Rs. 45,86,536/- 2009-10 Rs. 39,29,428/- 4. We have heard the submissions of both the sides and perused relevant material placed before us. We find that learned CIT(A) allowed the relief to the assessee following the order of his predecessor for AY 2003-04 to 2006-07 wherein the CIT(A) has held as under:- "In the present case also, although the production has not been carried out in the years under consideration but the assets are kept as a stand by for the whole year. Moreover, although the production is susp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ture in said block of assets as individual assets lose their identity after becoming inseparable part of block of assets." 6. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that even if some of the units of the assessee are closed, other units are certainly working and the depreciation is to be allowed on the entire block of assets of the plant & machinery and not only individual plant and machinery of each unit of the assessee. In our opinion, the above decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court would be squarely applicable to the assessee of the assessee. When some of the units are closed and some of the units are working, then, the depreciation on the entire block of assets would be allowed. Accordingly, ground No.1 of the Revenue&#39....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The 'once for all' payment test is also inconclusive. What is relevant is the purpose of the outlay and its intended object and effect, considered in a common sense way having regard to the business realities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Associated Cement Company Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC) has held as under:- ".....nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable on an application of this test. If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee's business to be carried on more effectively or more profitably whil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as to which expenses debited under the head quarry development expenses were capital in nature. The expenses are in the nature of salaries, wages, fuel, power, rent etc. which cannot be said to be in the nature of capital expenditure. The expenditure has been incurred on removal of over burden at the site of lime stone deposits. The expenditure has been incurred for removing the soil, stones etc in order to reach the deposits of cement grade lime stones. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Katras Jharia Coal Co.Ltd. 118 ITR 6 (Cal) has held that expenses for removal of over burden were not for acquiring any right of properties and will also not result in any enduring benefit and therefore were revenue in nature. In v....