Commissioner of Income Tax V. M/s. Kasila Farms (P) Ltd.

RC/42/2002

AI Insights

The cases referred to the High Court of Hyderabad involved multiple references under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the classification of 'poultry sheds' as 'plants' for the purpose of depreciation and investment allowance. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, had previously treated these sheds as 'plants', allowing higher depreciation rates. However, the Revenue challenged this classification, leading to these references. The court's decision was heavily influenced by its earlier ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax v Padmavathi Hatcheries P. Ltd, which found that poultry sheds do not qualify as plants.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 719219 (HC-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax v Padmavathi Hatcheries P. Ltd
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Depreciation; Industrial Undertaking; Investment allowance; Plant; Poultry shed; Relief u/s 80 HHA and 80 I
• Section: 256(1)

Judgement Text

"THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA REFERRED CASE Nos.54, 81 of 1998; 42 of 2002; 3 and 6 of 2004 Dated:08.12.2011 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P.I, Hyderabad, And another. …Applicant and M/s.Surya Farms, Hyderabad, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA REFERRED CASE Nos.54, 81 of 1998; 42 of 2002; 3 and 6 of 2004 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In all these Referred Cases under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the question is whether the ‘poultry shed’ should be treated as a ‘plant’ thereby allowing the assessee to claim higher rate of depreciation as applicable to plant and not the rate of depreciation as applicable to building. The questions referred are extracted below. In R.C.No.54 of 1998 at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench “B”, referred the following question for the opinion of this Court. Whether on the 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 and investment allowance? In R.C.No.81 of 1998 at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench “A”, referred the following question for the opinion of this Court. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in treating the ‘poultry sheds’ as ‘Plant’ for the purpose of allowing depreciation? In R.C.No.42 of 2002 at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench “A”, referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in directing to allow depreciation and investment allowance on poultry sheds treating them as ‘plant’? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in directing the assessing officer to allow some deduction towards fall in the value of the birds, by way of depletion allowance? In R.C.No.3 of 2004 at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench “A”, referred the following question for the opinion of this Court. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in treating the poultry sheds as ‘plant’ for the purpose of allowance of depreciation? In R.C.No.6 of 2004 at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench “A”, referred the following question for the opinion of this Court. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the poultry farm is an industrial undertaking for the purpose of relief u/s 80 HHA and 80 I ? The questions referred to this Court are squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v Padmavathi Hatcheries P .Ltd [1] wherein this Court has held that the ‘poultry shed’ is not a ‘plant’, and the question referred was answered in favour of the Revenue holding that the assessee is not entitled to claim higher rate of depreciation treating ‘poultry shed’ as a ‘plant’. Following the decision in Padmavathi Hatcheries P .Ltd , the questions referred to in all these Referred Cases are answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Referred Cases shall stand disposed of accordingly. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ____________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 08.12.2011 vs [1] (2011) 335 IT R 325 "