9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "road transport vehicles" under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of investment allowance. Analysis: The case involved a question regarding whether motor cars used by an industrial undertaking could be considered as "road transport vehicles" for the purpose of claiming investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing electrical conductors, claimed investment allowance for motor cars used in its business. The Income-tax Officer, the first appellate authority, and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal did not permit the deduction of the allowance claimed, leading to the reference to the High Court. The section in question, 32A(1) of the Act, allows for an investment allowance in respect of certain assets wholly used for business purposes. However, the second proviso of the section explicitly excludes deduction in respect of "road transport vehicles" among other items. The term "road transport vehicles" was not defined in the Act, leading to a debate on its interpretation. The court rejected the argument that the term "road transport vehicles" should be interpreted based on the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing that in the absence of a specific definition, the term should be understood in its general English sense. Referring to past judgments under the Indian Income-tax Act, the court noted that development rebate was permissible for motor vehicles, but changes in legislation excluded "road transport vehicles" from investment allowance eligibility under the 1961 Act. The court also considered arguments from other High Court judgments regarding the interpretation of similar terms like "office appliances." However, it emphasized that the plain language of the exclusionary provision in section 32A(1) must be upheld, and the intention of Parliament was to exclude "road transport vehicles" from investment allowance benefits. While acknowledging the need for a liberal interpretation of tax provisions to achieve their underlying objectives, the court held that the clear language of the law must prevail. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that "road transport vehicles" such as motor cars were not entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In conclusion, the court answered the reference question in the affirmative, supporting the Revenue's position and denying the assessee's claim for investment allowance on motor cars used in the industrial undertaking.
|
