9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding deduction of expenditure on new machinery, replacement of machinery, treatment of independent complete machinery expenditure, and computation of deduction under Section 80I.
Deduction of amounts spent on new machinery: The assessing officer disallowed the claim of the assessee for treating the purchase of new machinery as revenue expenditure, as the claim was found to be false. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that such expenditure can be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal upheld this decision, considering the expenditure as replacement and therefore revenue expenditure. The Supreme Court decisions were cited, and the matter was remitted back to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for re-consideration based on the Supreme Court's dictum. Deduction of amounts spent on replacement of machinery: The assessing officer disallowed the claim of the assessee for replacement expenditure of autoconer, stating it cannot be treated as revenue expenditure. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the claim, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, considering the expenditure as replacement and therefore revenue expenditure. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for re-consideration based on the Supreme Court's dictum. Treatment of independent complete machinery expenditure: The assessing officer recomputed the deduction under Section 80I for one of the mills by reducing the expenditure proportionate to the mill's turnover. The CIT (Appeals) directed the assessing officer to allocate the expenditure based on the number of spindles and not based on the turnover. The Tribunal upheld this decision, and the matter was remitted back to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for re-consideration based on the Supreme Court's dictum. Computation of deduction under Section 80I: The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80I had to be computed by allocating the expenditure based on the spindlage and not on turnover pertaining to the mill. The matter was remitted back to the authorities for fresh consideration, and this question did not arise for consideration in the present appeal. The tax case appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
