1988 (7) TMI 11 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of Rs. 22,878 for maintenance and running of accommodation at Renukoot.
2. Deduction of Rs. 11,162 for expenses incurred during the inauguration of the factory at Renukoot.
3. Entitlement to development rebate u/s 33 for weather radar equipment.

Summary:

Issue 1: Deduction of Rs. 22,878 for Maintenance and Running of Accommodation at Renukoot
The Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 22,878. The accommodation provided by the assessee at Renukoot was not a "guest house" as contemplated u/s 37(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because the assessee was charging visitors for their stay. The Tribunal noted that there were no hotels or other accommodations available near the factory premises, making the provided accommodation a part of the business assets. The expenses incurred were not "entertainment" expenses.

Issue 2: Deduction of Rs. 11,162 for Inauguration Expenses
The Tribunal upheld the deduction of Rs. 11,162 incurred during the inauguration of the factory at Renukoot, stating that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. The modern trend of inaugurating a factory by a V.I.P. was considered a business activity, and the expenditure was deemed revenue in nature, aimed at extending the existing business without creating a new asset.

Issue 3: Entitlement to Development Rebate u/s 33 for Weather Radar Equipment
The Tribunal ruled that the assessee was entitled to claim development rebate u/s 33 for the weather radar equipment. The radar was used by the assessee for its business and also hired out to other companies under a pooling arrangement. The Tribunal found that the radar was wholly used for the assessee's business, and the temporary use by other companies did not disqualify the assessee from claiming the rebate. The court agreed, noting that an asset could be exploited by the owner or let out to others without losing its status as a commercial asset of the business.

Conclusion:
All questions were answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. There was no order as to costs.