Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1991 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1991 (2) TMI 91 - HC - Income Tax

Issues involved: Assessment of technical know-how cost under section 80J, Relief under section 80-1 on interest income, Relief under section 80J on bank deposit.

Assessment of technical know-how cost under section 80J: The case involved the inclusion of the cost of technical know-how in the capital for computing relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The dispute arose regarding the depreciation on the asset created from the purchase of technical know-how. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had differing views on whether the amount should be included in the capital computation. The High Court, referring to rule 19A(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules and the Supreme Court decision in Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 86, held that the value of the asset should be included based on depreciation allowance. The first question was answered in favor of the assessee.

Relief under section 80-1 on interest income: The issue revolved around whether interest income earned by the assessee, which was a priority industry, could be considered as business income for the purpose of relief under section 80-1. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal that the interest income was attributable to the business income of the assessee, and thus, relief under section 80-1 was justified. The second question was answered in favor of the assessee.

Relief under section 80J on bank deposit: The question was whether the bank deposit of Rs. 1.40 crores, earmarked for the expansion program and liabilities of the industrial undertaking, could be considered as capital employed for the purpose of relief under section 80J. Citing the decision in CIT v. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 42, the High Court held that the deposit was related to the industrial undertaking and should be treated as capital employed. The third question was answered in favor of the assessee.

Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates