9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of item No. 25 of the Ninth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the eligibility of carbon dioxide as a product covered under "carbon and graphite products" for investment allowance under section 32A(1) of the Act. Analysis: The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the eligibility of carbon dioxide manufactured by the assessee as falling within the scope of item No. 25 of the Ninth Schedule to the Act, which covers "carbon and graphite products." The assessee, a limited company manufacturing carbon dioxide, soda water machines, and spare parts, claimed investment allowance under section 32A(1) based on the argument that carbon dioxide was a product falling under item No. 25. The Income-tax Officer initially rejected the claim, contending that carbon dioxide did not qualify under the Ninth Schedule. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that carbon dioxide did fall under item No. 25. The Revenue then appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing that item No. 25 only covered products made of pure carbon, which did not include carbon dioxide. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the term "carbon" in item No. 25 was not limited to "pure carbon," thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The key legal provision in question was section 32A of the Act, which provides for investment allowance to an assessee for machinery used in business activities. The relevant subsection specified that the allowance applied to machinery used for the manufacture of articles listed in the Ninth Schedule. Item No. 25 of the Ninth Schedule specifically mentioned "carbon and graphite products." The court analyzed the language of item No. 25 and concluded that it encompassed all forms of carbon and products thereof, without a requirement for "pure carbon." Referring to the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of carbon and carbon dioxide as a carbon compound, the court determined that carbon dioxide was a product of carbon and hence fell within the scope of item No. 25, making the assessee eligible for investment allowance under section 32A(1). The court drew parallels to previous Supreme Court decisions, such as Alladi Venkateswarlu v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, State of Bihar v. Universal Hydrocarbons Co. Ltd., and State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahi Traders, where the interpretation of terms like "rice," "coke," and "hides and skins" was broadened to include various forms and derivatives. Applying these precedents, the court held that carbon dioxide, as a product of carbon, was covered by item No. 25 of the Ninth Schedule, affirming the assessee's entitlement to investment allowance under section 32A(1). In conclusion, the court answered the referred question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, and disposed of the reference without costs.
|
