2003 (1) TMI 90 - HC - Income Tax

(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the depreciation allowed at the rate of 15 per cent. on generator in the original assessment could not be said to have been wrongly allowed? - (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the subsidy amounting to Rs. 37,670 receivable by the assessee from the U.P. Finance Corporation was not deductible from the cost of the generator amounting to Rs. 1,72,770 for working out the depreciation admissible on the generator? - question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the Department and in favour of the assessee. - question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative, that is, against the Department and in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness of depreciation rate on generator in original assessment.
2. Deductibility of subsidy from the cost of the generator for depreciation calculation.

Issue 1 - Correctness of Depreciation Rate on Generator in Original Assessment:
The case involved a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the correctness of the depreciation rate on a generator in the original assessment. The Income-tax Officer initially allowed depreciation at 15%, which was later rectified to 10%. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, where the exclusion of a subsidy amount from the cost of the generator was contested by the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the reduced depreciation rate and confirmed the exclusion of the subsidy amount from the cost of the generator. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the subsidy amount was not deductible from the generator's cost for depreciation purposes, as the generators were considered electric machinery and not original machinery and plant. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the High Court, emphasizing that the original assessment order did not contain any apparent error justifying rectification. The Court concluded that the depreciation rate was a debatable issue, and the Tribunal's decision to allow depreciation at 15% was correct.

Issue 2 - Deductibility of Subsidy from the Cost of the Generator for Depreciation Calculation:
The second issue revolved around the deductibility of a subsidy amount from the cost of the generator for depreciation calculation. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had ruled in favor of deducting the subsidy from the generator's cost, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation that the subsidy did not meet the criteria for deduction from the "actual cost" under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act. Citing a Supreme Court decision in CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd., the High Court concurred with the Tribunal, stating that the subsidy did not qualify for deduction from the actual cost for depreciation calculation. Therefore, the Court answered question No. 2 in the affirmative, against the Department and in favor of the assessee, aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation regarding the deductibility of subsidies from the actual cost under the Income-tax Act.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, the positions taken by the authorities involved, and the final decisions rendered by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal reasoning and conclusions reached in the case.