9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: The judgment addresses questions related to the cancellation of an order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, application of rule 115 of the Income-tax Rules, adjustments for exchange fluctuations in plant and machinery costs, and entitlement to investment allowance under section 32A for technical know-how.
Cancellation of Order u/s 263: The High Court found that the Tribunal was justified in not invoking section 263 of the Income-tax Act, as there was no need to cancel the Commissioner's order. The Court deemed this issue straightforward and did not see the necessity of further inquiry or framing of questions. Application of Rule 115 of Income-tax Rules: The Court clarified that rule 115, which concerns income accrual or arising, is not applicable to the valuation of plant and machinery. Therefore, the question regarding the correct application of rule 115 did not arise from the Tribunal's order and was deemed misconceived. Adjustments for Exchange Fluctuations: Regarding adjustments for exchange rate fluctuations in plant and machinery costs, the Court referred to section 43A of the Income-tax Act. It explained that when there is an increase in liability due to exchange rate changes after acquiring assets from abroad, the increased liability should be added to the actual cost of the asset. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision on this matter was justified. Entitlement to Investment Allowance u/s 32A: The Court discussed the eligibility for investment allowance under section 32A for technical know-how. It referenced previous judgments that interpreted the term "plant" broadly to include technical know-how. The Court concluded that technical know-how falls under the definition of "plant" for the purpose of investment allowance. It highlighted that the phrase "machinery or plant installed" in section 32A does not exclude technical know-how. Therefore, the Court found that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance for technical know-how. Conclusion: The Court discharged the rule with no order as to costs, indicating that all the questions raised were adequately addressed in the judgment, and further inquiry was unnecessary based on the existing legal interpretations and precedents cited.
|
