9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the weekly magazines "Ananda Vikatan," "Kumudam," and "Kalkandu" qualify as "newspapers" for the purpose of depreciation allowance. 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's finding that these weeklies are newspapers is based on valid and proper materials. 3. Whether the interpretation given by the Appellate Tribunal to the word "newspaper" used in the depreciation Schedule is proper and justified. Summary: Issue 1: Qualification as Newspapers The central issue was whether the weekly magazines "Ananda Vikatan," "Kumudam," and "Kalkandu" qualify as "newspapers" for the purpose of claiming a higher depreciation allowance of 10% on their plant and machinery. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had held that these weeklies are newspapers and thus entitled to the higher depreciation rate. The Tribunal based its decision on the content of the publications, which included current news, comments on news, cinema news, sports news, advertisements, literary matters, and other items of public interest. The Tribunal also noted that these publications were registered as newspapers under various enactments and exempt from sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Issue 2: Validity of Tribunal's Finding The Tribunal's finding was contested by the Revenue, which argued that the term "newspaper" should apply only to daily publications giving all kinds of news without specialization. The Tribunal considered definitions from various enactments and dictionaries, ultimately concluding that the weeklies in question satisfied the requirements of a newspaper. The Tribunal emphasized that the publications catered to a readership interested in news and current events, even if not on a daily basis. Issue 3: Interpretation of "Newspaper" The Tribunal's interpretation of the term "newspaper" was challenged on the grounds that it was based on invalid and improper materials. The Revenue argued that the weeklies contained mostly short stories, serialized stories, and literary fiction, which do not qualify as news. The Tribunal, however, held that the weeklies' content, including news items and comments on current events, justified their classification as newspapers. Separate Judgment: Balasubrahmanyan J. disagreed with the Tribunal's conclusion, arguing that the term "newspaper" should be understood in its ordinary sense, which typically refers to daily publications. He emphasized that the weekly nature of the publications meant they lacked the immediacy of news, a key characteristic of newspapers. He also noted that the special depreciation rate should apply to the entire unit of a newspaper production plant, not just individual machines capable of printing newspapers. Final Order: Ramanujam J. agreed with Balasubrahmanyan J., concluding that the weeklies did not qualify as newspapers for the purpose of the higher depreciation allowance. The final order, based on the majority opinion, answered the questions in favor of the Revenue, denying the higher depreciation rate to the assessees. The court also rejected an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
|
