1986 (7) TMI 47 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Depreciation on assets used in scientific research
2. Entitlement to development rebate under section 33
3. Inclusion of borrowed capital in capital base for relief under section 80J

Depreciation on assets used in scientific research:
The Tribunal referred the question of whether assets used in scientific research are entitled to depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, despite 100% of the capital expenditure being allowed as deduction under section 35. The High Court relied on a previous decision involving the same assessee and answered the question in the negative, favoring the Revenue. The decision was based on the amended section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Entitlement to development rebate under section 33:
The controversy revolved around whether the assessee was entitled to development rebate at an enhanced rate under section 33 for manufacturing polythene and rubber chemicals. The Income-tax Officer initially denied the higher rebate, stating that polythene was not considered a petrochemical under item 18 of the Fifth Schedule. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the higher development rebate. The High Court, after considering arguments and precedents, upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the question was mainly factual, and there was no evidence ignored by the Tribunal.

Inclusion of borrowed capital in capital base for relief under section 80J:
The Tribunal had to determine whether borrowed capital should be included in the capital base for relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Citing a decision of the Supreme Court in a similar case, the High Court answered the question in the negative, favoring the Revenue. The Tribunal's decision was upheld based on the interpretation of section 80J read with relevant rules.

In conclusion, the High Court addressed and resolved the issues regarding depreciation on assets used in scientific research, entitlement to development rebate under section 33, and the inclusion of borrowed capital for relief under section 80J. The judgment provided detailed analysis, considered relevant precedents, and ultimately ruled in favor of the Revenue in some instances and in favor of the assessee in others, based on the specific facts and legal interpretations presented in each case.