1994 (11) TMI 99 - HC - Income Tax

Issues Involved:

1. Interpretation of Section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Eligibility for development rebate under Section 33(1)(b)(B)(i) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Classification of steel castings and forgings under the Fifth Schedule of the Income-tax Act.
4. Distinction between raw material and finished products in the context of development rebate.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The court recapitulated sub-section (1)(b)(B)(i) of section 33, which states that a deduction will be allowed for machinery or plant installed for the business of construction, manufacture, or production of specified articles or things listed in the Fifth Schedule. The deduction rate is thirty-five percent of the actual cost if installed before April 1, 1970, and twenty-five percent if installed after March 31, 1970. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 33 specifies that this deduction is subject to section 34 of the Act and applies to the year in which the machinery or plant was installed or first put to use.

2. Eligibility for development rebate under Section 33(1)(b)(B)(i) of the Income-tax Act:

The assessee claimed a development rebate deduction at 25 percent of the cost of machinery set up for manufacturing steel castings. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Commissioner, and Tribunal had differing views on whether the machinery qualified for the rebate under entry 11 of the Fifth Schedule. The Tribunal held that the assessee qualified for the rebate as the machinery was for manufacturing steel castings, which was sufficient under the law.

3. Classification of steel castings and forgings under the Fifth Schedule of the Income-tax Act:

The core issue was whether the phrase "steel castings and forgings and malleable iron and steel castings" should be read conjunctively or disjunctively. The Tribunal interpreted it disjunctively, meaning machinery for either steel castings or forgings or malleable iron or steel castings qualified for the rebate. The Supreme Court in CIT v. Krishna Copper and Steel Rolling Mills clarified that the end-product must be considered to determine eligibility, emphasizing the distinction between raw material and finished products.

4. Distinction between raw material and finished products in the context of development rebate:

The Supreme Court's judgment in CIT v. Krishna Copper and Steel Rolling Mills established that if the end-product retains the character of raw material (iron and steel), it qualifies under item No. 1 of the Fifth Schedule. If it is an article made of iron and steel, it qualifies under item No. 11. The court discussed various precedents and principles, concluding that the nature of the article, not the manufacturing process, determines eligibility for the development rebate.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the product's classification as raw material or a finished product determines its eligibility for development rebate under item No. 1 or item No. 11 of the Fifth Schedule. The reference was answered accordingly, emphasizing that the rebate is permissible if the product retains the character of iron and steel or is an article made of iron and steel. No costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →