1. In view of divergence of opinions in two judgments of the Division Benches of this Court, the then learned Chief Justice made reference to this Full Bench to express opinion on the question “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim 100% depreciation on the centering/shuttering material?”

2. The first Division Bench in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raghavendra Constructions [(2011) 332 ITR 235 (AP)] (for short “the first judgment”) decided on 19.01.2011, while dealing with the aforesaid question, held that if a thing (material) itself is durable but cannot effectively stand alone without functional integration, it would not qualify as a plant and answered the question against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The second Division Bench in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Live Well Home Finance (P) Limited decided on 27-11-2014 (for short “the second judgment”), however, answered the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, applying durability and functional test to hold that every individual thing (material), such as shuttering plate