9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to deduction u/s 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Frigate Project. 2. Entitlement to depreciation and development rebate on the expenditure incurred on excavation and masonry work for the Kasara Basin Wet Dock. Issue 1: Deduction u/s 80J for the Frigate Project The Tribunal referred the question of whether the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Frigate Project for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71. The assessee company, taken over by the Central Government in 1960, initiated the Frigate Project, which required a separate license obtained in 1966. The Income-tax Officer denied the claim based on the Calcutta High Court decision in CIT v. Textile Machinery Corporation [1971] 80 ITR 428 and the absence of separate accounts. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal concluded that the Frigate Project was a new undertaking, thus entitling the assessee to relief u/s 80J. The court noted that the Calcutta High Court decision relied upon by the Income-tax Officer was overruled and cited the Supreme Court's confirmation in CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. [1977] 108 ITR 367. Additionally, the court referenced Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 111, stating that separate accounts were not a prerequisite for relief u/s 80J. Consequently, the court answered the first question in the affirmative, favoring the assessee. Issue 2: Depreciation and Development Rebate on Kasara Basin Wet Dock The second issue addressed whether the concrete walls built after excavation constituted part of the plant in Kasara Basin Wet Dock, entitling the assessee to depreciation and development rebate on the expenditure. The assessee incurred Rs. 1,76,35,639 on the dock, claiming it as the cost of plant and machinery. The Income-tax Officer allowed development rebate only on Rs. 17,22,639, considering the rest as costs for excavation and masonry. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal found that the wet dock, including the concrete walls, was integral to the plant, referencing CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd [1974] 96 ITR 672. The court reviewed various judgments, including IRC v. Barclay, Curle and Co. Ltd. [1970] 76 ITR 62, and concluded that the functional test should determine if a structure is a plant. The Tribunal's findings indicated that the concrete walls were essential for the plant's operation. The court found no material difference between dry and wet docks regarding the functional test and answered the second question in the affirmative, favoring the assessee. Conclusion: Both questions were answered in the affirmative, favoring the assessee, with no order as to costs.
|
