TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (3) TMI 94
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unds Nos. 4 & 5 the Department is objecting to the direction of the Commissioner (A) to allow depreciation on roads, drains and culverts. At the time of hearing it was accepted that this point is now decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. (1984) 38 CTR (Kar) 162 : (1984) 150 ITR 23 (Kar). Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (A) on this point has to be upheld. 4. In grounds Nos. 6 & 7 the issue is whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation at the rate of 10per cent on water supply installations. This finding of the Commissioner (A) is in conformity with the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the earlier assessment years. Therefore, these grounds are also dismissed. 5. In ground No. 8 the question is whether the assessee is entitled to additional depreciation and extra shift allowance on bins, racks and shelves. Full details have not been given to us but, as illustration, the departmental representative Shri Ravibalan has given the figures relating to the Hyderabad unit: Written down value of these assets Rs. 5,96,052 Addition for the year ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the expression 'plant' is much wider than the expression 'furniture' or 'building' in some cases. So what follows is that in cases like this the expression 'plant' is the general expression and the expressions 'building or furniture' is the special description of the certain assets which could come under the general heading of 'plant'. Now, under the rule of interpretation generalia specialibus non derogant it is very clear that where there are special provisions it will exclude the general provision. In this case the special provision is for those assets which would come under the head 'furniture' even though it could be described as 'plant' in the sense that it is a tool of the trade. Even then since the special description of furniture would fit in with the description of the asset that special provision will be applicable and not the general provision with regard to the plant. Thus, looking at from, this angle the assessee is entitled to get depreciation only at the rates applicable to furniture. 6A. But we have genuine doubts whether the bins and shelves could be considered as 'plant' at all. As we stated earlier, they are merely used in storing the components, which are a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra shift allowance on communication equipment is objected to by the department. We understand that these consist of the Radar equipment at Bangalore, Koraput and Nasik. They also comprise of the internal telecommunication equipments at all the factory units as well as telephone equipments like PABX, PBX, etc. the ITO did not accept the assessee's contention that these items should be treated as plant. On appeal, the Commissioner (A) held that these equipments are entitled to extra shift allowance. 9. Shri Ravibalan for the Department objected to the allowance on two grounds. First, he stated that these communication equipments are electronic equipments and, therefore, they are not entitled to extra shift allowance. The second submission is that these are not utilised in the main manufacturing activity of the assessee company, i.e. for manufacturing aircrafts. They are only used on some minor or collateral purposes. Therefore, the claim should have been rejected. 10. We have considered the submissions. The first point to be considered is whether the radars, internal communication systems, etc. could be considered as "wireless apparatus and gear", which is item 24 in B in III '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is on appeal. Shri Ravibalan first submitted that the reduction in value is routine and ad hoc at 3 per cent of the value of the stock. This, however, is countered by Shri Gupta who appeared for the company. He submitted that it is not a percentage of the book value of the stock but actual revaluation done by the management taking into account the various factors which go to reduce its marketability. We also find that there is not substance in the claim of the Department that it is an ad hoc revaluation. When an assessee like the HAL revalues their stock on account of some of them having no marketability that must be accepted as a fact. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. 1975 CTR (Bom) 80 : (1977) 106 ITR 363 (Bom.). In that case also, the company had revalued their obsolete stock and had claimed a deduction of Rs.1,78,277. This was claimed as an admissible expenditure or a deduction under s. 28 itself. The ITO took the view that the loss of the discarded plants retained in the books could be referable to certain earlier years. These contentions had been rejected by the High Court and they h....