9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of capital expenditure for acquisition of plant and machinery. 2. Determination of whether payments for plant and machinery acquisition are part of completed acquisition. Analysis: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh was presented with two questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. The first issue revolved around whether specific sums represented capital expenditure for acquiring plant and machinery. The second question pertained to whether the payments in question were part of plant and machinery acquisition already completed before the relevant assessment year (1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77). The court noted that identical questions were addressed for the assessment year 1973-74, with a previous judgment favoring the Revenue. The assessee argued that the facts differed between the assessments, emphasizing the need for a separate consideration. However, the court found no substantial variance in the basic facts between the assessments. The core facts involved the assessee, a public limited company engaged in moped manufacturing, obtaining machinery from a French manufacturer through a foreign exchange loan. The repayment mechanism involved rupee payments to be converted into foreign currency by a financial institution. The court highlighted the continuity in facts between the assessments, rendering a reevaluation unnecessary. The court referenced the earlier judgment's reliance on a specific statement regarding the nature of payments to the foreign supplier. The assessee contended that such a statement was absent in the current case's facts, seeking a fresh examination. However, the court found the facts consistent across both references, with the statement from the prior case being implicitly included in the current proceedings. As a result, the court deemed it unnecessary to reargue the matter, especially considering the finality of the earlier judgment. Consequently, the court answered the first question affirmatively in favor of the Revenue and declined to address the second question, citing the previous judgment's conclusive nature. In response to the oral request for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 of the Income-tax Act, the court rejected the plea, deeming the case unfit for certification, particularly due to the finality of the previous judgment related to an earlier assessment year. The court's decision was based on the consistency of facts and the conclusive nature of the prior ruling, leading to the rejection of the appeal certification request.
|
