The High Court disposed of three income tax appeals regarding depreciation on poultry sheds. Relying on a prior 2011 judgment, the court held that a poultry shed is a building, not a plant, thus rejecting higher depreciation claims.
The appeals were dismissed in favor of the Revenue and against the Assessee.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
I.T.T.A. Nos.92, 139 and 151 of 2002
Between:
ITTA. No.92 of 2002 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad. … Appellant And Kohinoor Hatcheries Private Limited … Respondent ITTA. No.139 of 2002 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad. … Appellant And Kohinoor Hatcheries Private Limited … Respondent ITTA. No.151 of 2002 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad. … Appellant And Kohinoor Hatcheries Private Limited … Respondent
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
I.T.T.A. Nos.92, 139 and 151 of 2002
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri GC, J)
At the instance of the Revenue for the assessment year 1996-97, 199495 and 1995-96, under mentioned question of law has been raised.
“Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in treating the Poultry Shed as Plant for the purpose of allowing depreciation?
The matter is now stands covered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee in view of the judgment of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PADMAVATHI HATCHERIES (P.) Ltd .[1] , where this Court had held that for the purpose of depreciation, the Poultry Shed is not a Plant enabling the Assessee to claim higher rate of depreciation as applicable to a Plant and the depreciation is allowable only as building. In view of the well settled principles, as held in the judgment referred to above, question of law, which has been answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee, all the three appeals are disposed of, accordingly.
____________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
__________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
Date: 10.03.2014 LSK
[1] [2011] 335 ITR 325 (AP)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the poultry shed should be treated as a plant or a building for the purpose of allowing depreciation?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Padmavathi Hatcheries (P.) LtdFollowed¶14
[2011] 335 ITR 325 (AP)
Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad
Kohinoor Hatcheries Private Limited
G. Chandraiah
Challa Kodanda Ram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
