IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 ITA.No. 685 of 2009 --------------------- ITA.776/COCH/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/REVENUE: ------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: -------------------------------------------- HARRISON MALAYALAM LTD,WILLINGDON ISLAND,COCHIN-682003. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, CJ. & P.N.Ravindran, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.A.No. 685 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, CJ. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The appeal is preferred raising the following questions of law: “1. (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that for arriving at the written down value of the assets in the tea business, depreciation to the extent of 40% only was to be adjusted as the depreciation actually allowed. (b) Whether, the Tribunal is factually right in upholding the contention that depreciation actually allowed was only 40% and is not the finding wrong legally and factually. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the order of the Tribunal on the question of depreciation- i) against the principle laid down by the High Court in 246 ITR 278; ii) against the decision of the Honourable High Court in ITA 102/99 decided on 05.07.2006?” ITA No.685 of 2009 -:2:- In so far as the first question is concerned, admittedly the issue is no more res integra. It is covered by the directions in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Doom Dooma India Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 392(SC) and decided against the Revenue. In view of the said decision, nothing survives for adjudication by this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the second question. In the circumstances nothing survives in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ttb ITA No.685 of 2009 -:3:-