1985 (11) TMI 24 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Assessment of income-tax for the assessment year 1970-71 on rental income from hiring out gas cylinders, entitlement to depreciation and development rebate on the cylinders.

Assessment of Income-tax:
The assessee, engaged in the business of manufacturing steel products, was assessed for the assessment year 1970-71. The Income-tax Officer included rental income from hiring out gas cylinders in the assessee's business income but did not allow depreciation or development rebate on the cylinders valued at Rs. 2,74,402.

Appeal to Appellate Assistant Commissioner:
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner noted that the assessee's business was solely in the manufacture and sale of iron and steel goods. However, he allowed full depreciation and development rebate on the cylinders under amended rules, directing the Income-tax Officer to verify their cost.

Appeal to Income-tax Appellate Tribunal:
The Revenue appealed before the Tribunal, contending that development rebate on the cylinders should not have been allowed as the assessee was not in the business of hiring out cylinders. They argued that the cylinders were not used in the assessee's business and were owned by another entity.

Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order, stating that the assessee was indeed engaged in the business of hiring out cylinders, and the cylinders were considered installed in the assessee's business as per relevant legal interpretations.

Legal Interpretations and Precedents:
Various legal precedents were cited, emphasizing the wide interpretation of the terms "plant" and "installation" in the context of claiming development rebate on assets used for business purposes.

Decision of the High Court:
The High Court found that the assessee was entitled to claim development rebate on the gas cylinders based on the legal interpretations and precedents cited. The Court rejected the Revenue's contentions regarding ownership of the cylinders and upheld the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:
The High Court answered the question of allowing development rebate on the cylinders in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, now known as Apeejay Industries (P) Ltd. No costs were awarded in the matter.