9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Eligibility of investment allowance under section 32A for machinery used in boring operations to extract water from underground. - Interpretation of the term "production of any article or thing" in the context of drilling operations. - Application of the decision in CIT v. Super Drillers [1988] 174 ITR 640 to the current case. - Determining the purpose of extracting water to ascertain eligibility for investment allowance. Analysis: The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the eligibility of investment allowance under section 32A for machinery used in boring operations to extract water from underground. The dispute centered around whether the plant and machinery used for boring to extract sub-soil water would qualify for investment allowance under section 32A. The Assessing Officer initially denied the allowance, stating that boring and drawing sub-soil water did not constitute production of any article or thing. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed the allowance, leading to the Department's appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue contended that drilling operations did not result in the production of any article or thing merely by extracting underground water. The Tribunal, referencing the decision in CIT v. Super Drillers [1988] 174 ITR 640, held that by extracting underground water, the assessee engaged in the business of producing a thing or article. The Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in the Super Drillers case emphasized the purpose of operating drilling equipment to bring underground water to the surface for use, indicating an industrial undertaking for production. However, the High Court observed that the purpose of extracting water was crucial in determining eligibility for investment allowance. It differentiated between extracting water for de-watering mines and extracting water for surface use. The court highlighted that the commercial potential and surface use of the extracted water were essential considerations. Without clarity on the purpose of extracting water in the current case, the High Court declined to answer the question and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for further examination, including the ascertainment of the purpose of boring and drawing water from underground. Ultimately, the High Court did not provide a definitive answer on the eligibility of investment allowance but emphasized the importance of determining the purpose behind the extraction of water to establish whether it constituted the production of a commercial article or thing for surface use. The case was remitted to the Tribunal for additional fact-finding and evidence gathering on the purpose of the boring operations to make a conclusive determination.
|
