9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether the Tribunal was justified in not treating the computer as an office appliance and allowing investment allowance thereon. Analysis: The case involved a limited company for the assessment year 1982-83 where the Assessing Officer initially treated the computer as an office appliance and disallowed investment allowance. However, on appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax held that the computer was not an office appliance based on earlier Tribunal orders, allowing the investment allowance since the company was engaged in manufacturing activities. The Department appealed to the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal on July 13, 1992, leading to the current reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court referred to a similar case, CIT v. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd., where it was established that investment allowance is admissible for machinery or plant in an industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of construction, manufacture, or production, excluding office appliances. The court emphasized that 'data processing' or 'computer' is not listed in the Eleventh Schedule for disallowance, and an industrial company engaged in manufacturing is entitled to investment allowance. The court clarified the nature and function of computers and data-processing systems, stating that they are not office appliances but integral to industrial operations, converting raw data for processing. Relying on the precedent and the nature of the computer division as an industrial undertaking, the court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to allow investment allowance on the computer was justified. The court upheld that the computer was not an office appliance and qualified for investment allowance under section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The judgment favored the non-applicant/assessee, denying the Department's appeal without any costs awarded. In summary, the court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Income-tax Act and relevant precedents, determining that the computer in question was not an office appliance but an essential part of the industrial undertaking, thus eligible for investment allowance. The judgment highlighted the distinction between office appliances and machinery used for manufacturing purposes, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee.
|
