1998 (4) TMI 47

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee, Siddarth Agencies, Madras, is a registered firm, carrying on business in poultry farming. For the assessment year 1983-84, the assessee claimed depreciation on building used by it to house the cages for keeping of fowls, at the rate applicable to third class buildings by treating them as factory buildings. The Income-tax Officer rejected the assessee's claim and allowed depreciati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the building used by the assessee to house the cages and the chickens in its poultry business is not a factory, building for the purpose of allowance of depreciation?" Arguments of Mr. P. H. Aravindh Pandian, learned counsel, representing Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani, learned counsel appearing for the appli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cages and chickens, could ever be construed to be a factory building for the purpose of getting double the rate of depreciation prescribed under the old Appendix I. No doubt true it is, that the term "factory" is not defined under the Income-tax Act. But, none the less, as had been stated earlier, the depreciation for the building used for the purpose of factory is double the rate of depreciat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing used for housing cages and chickens cannot at all be construed as a factory building, entitling it to double the rate of depreciation. It is not as if the taxing authorities took such a view for the assessment year in question. Such a view had been consistently taken for the previous assessment years concerning the assessee. In such circumstances, we are of the view that there is no warrant to....