9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Development rebate on pontoons. 2. Relief u/s 80J for expansion units. 3. Nature of expenditure for consultancy fees. 4. Relief u/s 80M on dividend income. Summary: Issue 1: Development Rebate on Pontoons The court examined whether pontoons qualify as "ships" for a higher development rebate rate of 40% instead of 25% as "plant." The Tribunal's decision to treat pontoons as ships was upheld. The court noted that pontoons, although not self-propelled, fall under the category of vessels operating in inland waters as per the Income-tax Rules. Therefore, pontoons are covered by the expression "ships" and are entitled to development rebate at the rate of 40%. Issue 2: Relief u/s 80J for Expansion Units The Tribunal allowed relief u/s 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Sikka 4th Expansion Unit, Bombay Cement Mills 1st Expansion, and Asbestos Products Division 1st Expansion Unit. This was in line with the earlier decision of the Tribunal and confirmed by the court in CIT v. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 532. The court answered this question in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. Issue 3: Nature of Expenditure for Consultancy Fees The court deliberated whether the expenditure of Rs. 78,000 paid to M/s. Indopal British Consulting Enterprises for a feasibility report was a revenue or capital expenditure. The Tribunal held it as capital expenditure, linked to the construction of a shipyard intended to bring an asset or advantage of enduring nature. The court agreed, emphasizing that the expenditure was aimed at deciding on the development of a ship-building yard, thus qualifying as capital expenditure. The court answered this question in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. Issue 4: Relief u/s 80M on Dividend Income The court addressed whether relief u/s 80M should be on the gross or net amount of dividend. The Tribunal's decision to grant relief on the net amount of Rs. 12,23,279, following the decision in Addl. CIT v. Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. [1974] 97 ITR 140, was upheld. The court answered this question in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. Conclusion: The court ruled in favor of the assessee for issues 1 and 2, and in favor of the Revenue for issues 3 and 4.
|
