Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. The assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing soft drinks, as a licensee for the brands known as Coca Cola and Fanta. The soft drinks manufactured by it were sold in bottles. The assessee had huge stocks of bottles, in the year 1977, in which year the Coca Cola company withdrew from the Indian market, as it was not willing to comply with certain conditions which the Government of India wanted it to comply with. The assessee-company claimed that the huge stock of bottles kept by it was a dead loss to it and claimed the value thereof as a deduction in the assessment year 1978-79. The Tribunal has allowed the claim, after, inter alia, holding that it was not a capital loss as has been held by the appellate authority. The Revenue has caused this reference to be made. The question referred to us is, "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the loss of Rs. 20, 37, 848 is allowable as a business loss for the assessment year 1978-79 ?" We have, in Tax Cases Nos. 1376 and 1377 of 1987 by order dated August 17, 1998 (First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. v. CIT (No. 2), while considering the claim of a leasing company which had provided bottles to a soft drink manufacturer on lease, held that each bottle constituted a plant for the purpose of manufacturing and marketing of soft drinks and it has therefore to be treated as a capital asset the largest profit in relation to which should be determined in the manner provided in the Act. The ratio of that decision applies to the assessee herein as well, who is a soft drink manufacturer and who used bottles for storing the soft drink and marketing the same. Each bottle is to be treated as a separate unitThough the assessee had not treated the bottles as a plant in the past, that position had not been accepted by the Revenue. That past practice of the assessee cannot also be determinative of the true character of the bottle used in the assessee's business. Each bottle is to be treated as a separate unitThough the assessee had not treated the bottles as a plant in the past, that position had not been accepted by the Revenue. That past practice of the assessee cannot also be determinative of the true character of the bottle used in the assessee's business. The large number of bottles, which the assessee had at the time when the Coca Cola company withdrew from India, being plant in its true character, the assessee would have been entitled to claim depreciation thereon in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. The assessee, however, was not entitled to treat the value of those bottles as a business loss. The question referred to us must therefore be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The assessee did not have the occasion to raise before the Income-tax Officer its claim with reference to depreciation, as it had been misled by the fact that the Department itself had in some years, accepted that the amounts spent on acquiring the bottles and the value of the bottles not returned or broken were to be treated as part of the revenue account. We leave it open to the assessee to claim the benefit under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of those bottles for this assessment year and to the extent as permitted by law for the earlier assessment year as well.