2002 (1) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce of the following question for the opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering the fact that in the case quoted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, i.e., CIT v. Popular Borewell Service [1992] 194 ITR 12, the Madras High Court had held that depreciation of 30 percent was not allowable on rig and compressor used in drilling borewell, the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 194 ITR 12 affirmed the order of the Appellate Commissioner. It is contended by Mr. L. M. Lodha learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, that the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Popular Borewell Service [1992] 194 ITR 12 has not been correctly interpreted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Madras High Court held that merely because the rig and compressor are mounted on a lo....