1996 (12) TMI 31 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of extra shift allowance on air-conditioning machinery used for crimping yarn.
2. Interpretation of the term "plant" u/s 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Applicability of specific entries versus general entries for depreciation rates.

Summary:

1. Allowability of Extra Shift Allowance:
The primary issue was whether the assessee was entitled to extra shift allowance on air-conditioning machinery used for crimping yarn. The Tribunal had allowed the extra shift allowance based on certificates stating that air-conditioners were essential for the crimping process. However, the court held that air-conditioners, even if necessary for crimping, should be treated as air-conditioning machinery and not as part of the crimping machinery. The court concluded that air-conditioners fall under the specific entry for air-conditioning machinery, which excludes extra shift allowance.

2. Interpretation of "Plant" u/s 32:
The court discussed the term "plant" as used in section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, noting that it has a broad meaning but must be interpreted in a narrower sense for depreciation purposes. The court emphasized that each apparatus used in a business should be considered individually for depreciation and not as part of a larger unit. Therefore, air-conditioners, although necessary for the crimping process, should be treated independently as air-conditioning machinery.

3. Specific vs. General Entries for Depreciation:
The court applied the principle that specific provisions override general provisions. Since air-conditioning machinery is specifically listed with a non-eligibility for extra shift allowance (N.E.S.A.), it cannot be treated under the general category of artificial silk manufacturing machinery. The court reinforced that specific entries in the depreciation schedule should be given effect, and air-conditioners should be treated as a separate item for depreciation purposes.

Conclusion:
The court answered the reference in the negative, holding that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing extra shift allowance on air-conditioners used for crimping yarn. The judgment was in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, with no order as to costs.