9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Assessment of investment allowance u/s 32A for a firm engaged in mining activities.
Summary: The case involved the assessment of investment allowance u/s 32A for a registered firm engaged in mining activities. The firm purchased machinery for use and claimed investment allowance. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim, stating that the firm's activities did not qualify as industrial undertaking. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disagreed, noting that the firm's work constituted a process of coal production and directed allowance of investment. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, stating that the firm's activities did not amount to industrial activity as per section 32A. The Tribunal referred questions for opinion, which were answered in favor of the assessee by the High Court. The firm's engagement in cutting, drilling, blasting stones, and transportation within a specified distance was examined. The agreement with the coal company outlined phases of work including removing overburden, blasting stones, and finally blasting the coal belt. The High Court concluded that the firm was indeed engaged in coal production based on the nature of work undertaken. In a separate judgment, Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee concurred with the decision in favor of the assessee. The High Court ruled against the Revenue, upholding the allowance of investment for the firm's machinery used in coal production activities.
|
