2004 (11) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Income-tax) against a common order dated February 24, 1999, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 301/Ind./94, 624, 625, 916 and 917/Ind/96 in respect of the assessment years 1990-91,1991-92,1992-93. It was admitted for final hearing on the following two substantial questions of law by this court: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that no proportionate deduction on account of depreciation expenses of vehicles, ginning charges received from others and interest on deposits/borrowings should be made for working out eligible profits for the purposes of deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I? 2. Whether, on the facts ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... decision upheld the manner in which the deduction in question was calculated by the Assessing Officer in favour of the assessee, this question has to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee without going into any details. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, the facts relating to this question are that the assessee has two units. One is called the main unit and the other is called unit No. 2. The assessee owns car, scooter, trucks and tankers. The assessee however confined its claim of depreciation on these vehicles to its main unit and accordingly debited in the accounts of the main unit the claim of depreciation. According to the Assessing Officer since the assessee had used these vehicles in both the units and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Revenue in appeal before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal too upheld the finding of fact and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue giving rise to the filing of this second appeal. In our considered opinion, the issue involved on this question really does not involve any question of law as such but it is based on concurrent finding of facts based on the peculiar facts of the case. The Assessing Officer bifurcated the claim of depreciation in two units. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal accepted the factual version of the assessee on the question as to how and in what way they used the vehicles in question and why they claimed depreciation only in unit No. 1 and not in unit No. 2. This found favour ....