9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Depreciation allowance for capital assets used in scientific research. 2. Deductibility of surtax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. 3. Deduction of donations made to Mysore Kirloskar Education Trust. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Depreciation Allowance for Capital Assets Used in Scientific Research The court addressed whether capital assets purchased for and used in scientific research qualify for depreciation allowance u/s 32 in years other than the year of installation when the entire amount has been allowed u/s 35(2). Due to the retrospective amendment to section 35(2) by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, effective from April 1, 1962, both parties agreed that the question should be answered in the negative and in favor of the Revenue. The court accordingly answered the question in the negative. Issue 2: Deductibility of Surtax The court considered whether surtax payable under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, is deductible in computing the total income of the assessee. Referring to the precedent set in CIT v. International Instruments (P.) Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 936, the court noted that surtax is an additional tax on the profits and gains of an assessee's business and is not deductible under the I.T. Act. The court answered this question in the affirmative and against the assessee. Issue 3: Deduction of Donations to Mysore Kirloskar Education Trust The court examined whether the assessee's claim for deduction of 61.1% of Rs. 62,000 donated to Mysore Kirloskar Education Trust is valid u/s 37(1). The Tribunal had rejected the claim on two grounds: 1. Section 80G, being a special provision for donations, excludes the application of section 37. 2. The expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the assessee's business, as the school was also open to children of non-employees. The court found both reasons unsound. It clarified that sections 80G and 37 are not mutually exclusive, and if a donation qualifies as an expenditure u/s 37, it can be claimed in its entirety. The primary object of the trust was to provide education for the children of the employees and ex-employees, and incidental benefits to others should not disqualify the expenditure. However, the court could not answer the question definitively without a finding from the Tribunal on whether the donation qualifies as "expenditure" as defined u/s 37(1). The court directed the Tribunal to re-examine the appeal in light of these observations.
|
