9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim of investment allowance on the cost of a van treated as a road transport vehicle. Analysis: The appellant contested the disallowance of investment allowance on the cost of a van by the CIT(A), arguing that the van was used as part of their manufacturing activity. The appellant explained that the van was essential for transporting raw materials and semi-finished goods within the factory premises during the production process. Reference was made to a CBDT Instruction stating that a vehicle used within a factory for material transportation is not considered a road transport vehicle. The appellant also cited a judgment emphasizing the inclusive definition of "Plant" under section 43(3) for investment allowance eligibility. The argument focused on the interpretation of the term "road transport vehicle" and the need for a liberal construction to promote industrial growth, citing relevant case law. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's submissions, emphasizing that the van was primarily used for internal transportation within the factory premises, as supported by the CBDT Instruction provided. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had erred in considering the van as a road transport vehicle based on its use outside the factory premises. Relying on the detailed explanation and legal references presented by the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that the van qualified for investment allowance. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the investment allowance claimed by the appellant on the purchase of the van. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, overturning the disallowance of the investment allowance on the van. The decision was based on the understanding that the van's use for internal transportation within the factory premises aligned with the criteria for investment allowance eligibility, as clarified by relevant legal provisions and instructions.
|
