2004 (11) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ustified in allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs. 1,91,917 on the plant and machinery of vegetable ghee unit as these were not actually used for the full year relevant to the assessment year 1977-78?" The assessee is a limited company running a sugar factory, distillery, confectionery and vanaspati units. It did not operate the plant during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1977-78. But it claimed depreciation on plant and machinery on vegetable ghee unit. The claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer to the extent of Rs. 1,91,917 as the plant and machinery was not actually used for the full year in respect of the vegetable ghee unit. In appeal this part of the order was set aside by the Commissioner of Income-ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775, that section 32 confers a benefit on the assessee. The provision should be so interpreted and the words used therein should be assigned such meaning as would enable the assessee to secure the benefit intended to be given by the Legislature to the assessee. It is also settled that where there are two possible interpretations of a taxing provision, the one which is favourable to the assessee should be preferred. Two requirements to claim depreciation under section 32 of the Act are: (i) the asset should be owned by the assessee, and (ii) it should be used for the purposes of business or profession. The Supreme Court has preferred to give a wide meaning to the term "owned" following its earlier judgment given in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and the same can be said to be in use when it is kept ready for use. The Delhi High Court in CIT v. Refrigeration and Allied Industries Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 12, has held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation allowance on the cold storage plant though the machinery had not actually worked during the accounting period. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation [2002] 253 ITR 303 has held that the assessee who was the transporter had to keep spare engines in the store, was entitled for depreciation on spare engines in the store, as the engines were meant to be used in the case of need. There is a normal depreciation of value even when machines or equipment is merely kept in the store. Looking to ....