2003 (1) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred for the opinion of this court: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the depreciation allowed at the rate of 15 per cent. on generator in the original assessment could not be said to have been wrongly allowed? (2) Wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cent. The assessment was also reopened under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee objected to the exclusion of the subsidy amount of Rs. 37,670 received from the U.P. Finance Corporation, a Government body, from out of the cost of Rs. 1,72,770 of the generator. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the depreciation should be allowed at the reduced amount after adjustment of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On further appeal the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by its order dated May 21, 1980, held that the subsidy amount of Rs. 37,670 received from the U.P. Finance Corporation, a Government body, is not deductible from the cost of the generator for the purposes of allowing depreciation on the actual cost to the assessee. It was further held that the generators a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y and plant. Viewed from this angle the order passed by the Tribunal allowing depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent. on the generator is correct. Whether depreciation should be allowed at 15 per cent. or at 10 per cent. is a debatable question and it cannot be said that there was an error apparent on the face of the record on this issue, in the original assessment order. Hence, question No. 1 is....