2021 (11) TMI 439

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct to hold the rate of depreciation on machinery and equipments etc. @ 25% instead of 100% claimed as per the statute being on the case pollution control equipments used aqua culture purposes for providing healthy growth of prawn restricting pollution etc. And therefore correctly held that 100% depreciation is not allowable in the facts of the case ? III. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the approach road, drainage, bore-well, reservoir etc on which claim for depreciation made @ 25% holding as per schedule holding them as plant etc. can it be reduced to 10% by the Tribunal accepting as just and proper beyond the statute ?" 2. The appeal itself arises out o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ents were produced. 5. In the assessment order dated 17th March, 1998 for the AY 1994-95 under Section 143(3) read with Section 148 of the IT Act, the AO inter alia held that the claim for 100% on aerators, marine water pumps and motors was not justified. 6. The Assessee during the assessment proceedings disclosed that the name of the supply of the aerators, and the notice issued to the suppliers by the AO. The said supplier in its reply was unable to clarify whether the Aerators were "technically fit to be treated water pollution control equipments" as defined under the IT Rules, 1962". A reference was also made by the AO to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) whether the above technical devices used in the form of Aerators us....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mr. Panda, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant (Assessee) placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Victory Aqua Farm Ltd. (2015) 379 ITR 335 (SC) 11. The above decision has been perused. There the question of law considered by the Supreme Court of India reads as under: "Whether 'natural pond' which as per the assessee is specially designed for rearing prawns would be treated as 'plant' within S. 32 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the purposes of allowing depreciation thereon?" 12. In the context of the above question, the Supreme Court agreed with the Kerala High Court and answered the question in the affirmative i.e.....