2003 (4) TMI 79 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction of investment allowance on the CT scan machine installed and used - (a) Whether, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction of investment allowance of ₹ 16,77,837 on the CT scan machine installed and used by the appellant during the year under consideration? - (b) Whether, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the diagnostic centre run by the appellant was not an industrial undertaking? - (c) Whether, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that generating reports from the CT scan machine did not amount to manufacture or production of article or thing? - we answer all the above three questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to deduction of investment allowance on CT scan machine.
2. Determination of diagnostic centre as an industrial undertaking.
3. Consideration of generating reports from the CT scan machine as manufacturing or production.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this appeal was whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction of investment allowance on the CT scan machine installed and used during the relevant accounting year. The Tribunal found that the CT scan machine was installed in a diagnostic centre, which was not considered an industrial undertaking for the purpose of manufacturing or production. The court emphasized that for the investment allowance under section 32A to apply, the machinery should be installed in an industrial undertaking for the business of manufacturing or production of articles or things. Since the CT scan machine was part of a diagnostic centre and not an industrial undertaking, the preconditions for the deduction were not met. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the Department, denying the investment allowance claim.

2. The second issue revolved around whether the diagnostic centre run by the assessee could be classified as an industrial undertaking. The Tribunal determined that the diagnostic centre did not qualify as an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture of any article or thing. The court agreed with this finding, stating that the diagnostic centre's primary function was not production or manufacturing, but rather providing diagnostic services. As a result, the assessee was not entitled to the investment allowance under section 32A due to the diagnostic centre's nature and activities.

3. Lastly, the question of whether generating reports from the CT scan machine constituted manufacturing or production of articles or things was addressed. The court referred to previous judgments to establish that the reports obtained from the CT scan machine did not meet the criteria of manufacturing or production as required by section 32A. The reports were considered a result of diagnostic services rather than the creation of tangible articles or things with commercial value. Additionally, the installation of the CT scan machine in a diagnostic centre further supported the conclusion that the investment allowance claim was not justified. Consequently, all three questions raised in the appeal were answered in favor of the Department, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeal with no costs awarded.