Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kodak Ltd.

S.P. Bharucha, J.—This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue. The two questions which are raised read thus :

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest u/s 214 of the Income Tax Act should be given on the advance tax refund ensuing from the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner instead of advance tax refund resulting from the original assessment order ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that depreciation should be allowed at 30% on motor vans instead of at 20% as provided in the Rules ?"

Counsel are agreed that the answer to be given to the first question is concluded by the Full Bench judgment of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City - IV Vs. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd., . Following that judgment, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.

The second question relates to a motor van. It is the assessee''s case that this van cannot be equated with a motor car having regard to the grater horsepower of its engine and its axle weight. It is also pointed out that a higher tax has to be paid thereon as compared to the tax payable upon a motor car. The Tribunal accepted the assessee''s contention that depreciation upon this motor van should be allowed at the rate of 30% and not at the rate of 20% which is applicable to a motor car. It is difficult to see how this conclusion of the Tribunal can be faulted. The second question is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

No order as to costs.