IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 ITA.No. 152 of 2001() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA.224/1994 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT: ------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M/S.SRI. BHAGAVATHI TEXTILES LTD., CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R1 SRI.JOE JOSEPH KOCHIKUNNEL FOR R1 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2009, ALONG WITH ITA NO. 18 OF 2002 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. --------------------------------------------------- I.T.A. Nos. 152 of 2001 and 18 of 2002 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Ramachandran Nair,J. Question raised in the appeals is whether the replacement of machineries entitles the assessee for deduction of its value as of revenue expenditure or they are entitled only depreciation on the additional investment in plant and machinery ? On facts the Tribunal found that the amount claimed is value of replacements and so much so Tribunal allowed the claim as revenue expenditure. If the departmental claim is allowed, then the entire assessments for the last several years will have to be re- opened for allowing depreciation in instalments. The director of the company has filed an affidavit today stating that the company is being wound up and its accumulated loss is above Rs.35 crores. We therefore do not think any purpose in the department pursuing the appeals. We therefore dismiss the appeals without going into the questions raised as they have only academic value. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb