2004 (9) TMI 14 - HC - Income Tax

1. Whether, Tribunal was right in law in not having allowed initial depreciation on an amount of Rs. 13,502 being the expenditure on water cooler places, in view of section 32(1)(iv)? This question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee - 2. Whether Tribunal was right in law in having treated the amount of Rs. 1,56,393 earned by it from sale of import entitlements as constituting revenue receipt, liable to tax? - This question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee - 3. Whether Tribunal has correctly interpreted rule 6D(2) while disallowing a sum of Rs. 2,000 out of the travelling expenses? - This question is also answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee - Whether Tribunal is right in allowing initial depreciation on the construction of cycle stand for workers (cable unity as well as for that of (XLPE unit) which items have not been specifically mentioned in section 32(1)(iv)? This question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Initial depreciation on cycle stands and water cooler places.
2. Tax treatment of revenue received from sale of import entitlements.
3. Disallowance of traveling expenses under rule 6D(2) for professional retainers.

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Initial Depreciation on Cycle Stands and Water Cooler Places:
The assessee claimed initial depreciation on cycle stands and water cooler places under section 32(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, stating that these assets were not covered under the specified items in the provision. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim for cycle stands based on a previous order for a different assessment year. The Tribunal held that cycle stands fell under the specified categories, but water cooler places did not. The court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation, stating that water cooler places did not qualify as buildings specified in section 32(1)(iv). Therefore, the claim for initial depreciation on cycle stands was allowed, while the claim for water cooler places was rejected.

Issue 2 - Tax Treatment of Revenue from Sale of Import Entitlements:
The incorporation of clause (iiia) in section 28 of the Act mandated the inclusion of profit from the sale of import entitlements in the total taxable income. The counsel for the assessee acknowledged this change, leading to a decision in favor of the Revenue. Consequently, the question regarding the tax treatment of revenue from the sale of import entitlements was answered in favor of the Revenue.

Issue 3 - Disallowance of Traveling Expenses under Rule 6D(2) for Professional Retainers:
The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 2,000 of traveling expenses claimed by professional retainers, invoking rule 6D(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal reversed the Commissioner's decision, stating that the rule applied to any person traveling in connection with the business of the company, including professionals. The court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation, emphasizing that the term "any other person" in rule 6D(2) encompassed professionals. Therefore, the disallowance of traveling expenses for professional retainers under rule 6D(2) was upheld in favor of the Revenue.

In conclusion, the court's judgment addressed the issues of initial depreciation on specific assets, tax treatment of revenue from sale of import entitlements, and the disallowance of traveling expenses for professional retainers under rule 6D(2), providing detailed analysis and legal reasoning for each issue.