9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 80J(4)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the eligibility for deduction under section 80J for the purchase of used and old machinery for an industrial undertaking. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of a registered firm, engaged in manufacturing packing material, for deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee due to the purchase of old machinery exceeding the prescribed limit and not meeting the minimum worker requirement. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision based on the machinery being previously used in India and the worker count. However, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the deduction, emphasizing that the machinery was purchased from the open market and not previously used by the assessee. The Tribunal's decision was challenged, arguing that the old machinery purchased from the open market did not fall under the disqualification clause of section 80J(4)(ii). The Tribunal interpreted the law to promote industrial growth and considered machinery not previously used by the assessee as eligible for deduction. The Revenue contended that the conditions in section 80J(4) must be strictly followed, particularly clause (ii) regarding the transfer of previously used machinery to a new business. The High Court analyzed the provisions of section 80J(4) along with Explanations 1 and 2. Explanation 1 clarified that machinery used outside India by a person other than the assessee, not previously used in India before installation, and imported from a foreign country, could be considered for deduction. However, the Court disagreed with the Tribunal's interpretation, emphasizing that the machinery should not have been previously used in India for any business purpose. Referring to a previous case, the Court highlighted that all old and used machinery, regardless of the source or user, are not entitled to deduction under section 80J(4). The Court also referenced a circular by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, reinforcing the conditions for machinery eligibility. Ultimately, the Court held that the assessee failed to prove compliance with the conditions of Explanations 1 and 2, and thus, the Tribunal's decision was not justified. The reference was answered in favor of the Revenue, denying the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80J. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the strict interpretation of section 80J(4)(ii) regarding the eligibility criteria for deduction under section 80J, emphasizing the conditions related to the use of machinery and plant in a new industrial undertaking. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and established principles in tax law to determine entitlement to tax benefits.
|
