9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of statutory provisions for initial and additional depreciation allowances on replacement of petrol engines with diesel engines in a bus service business. Analysis: The case involved a question referred to the court regarding the entitlement of an assessee to claim initial and additional depreciation under specific sections of the Indian Income-tax Act on the sum spent in replacing petrol engines with diesel engines in a bus service business. The assessee claimed deductions under relevant sections, which was rejected by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and further confirmed on appeal. The controversy centered around whether diesel engines could be considered machinery for depreciation allowances, with conflicting opinions from different High Courts. The court analyzed the relevant statutory provisions, including Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10(2)(vi-a), which provide for depreciation allowances for buildings, machinery, and plant. The court highlighted the definition of "plant" under Section 10(5), including vehicles, and emphasized that machinery should be viewed as a unit, excluding component parts for depreciation purposes. The court referred to conflicting judicial opinions and observed that the expression "machinery" should be interpreted as a unit rather than individual parts. The court examined the Madras High Court decision supporting the inclusion of diesel engines as machinery for depreciation allowances and disagreed with it. The court emphasized that depreciation allowances should be based on the entire unit of machinery or plant, not individual parts. The court also considered the language of the relevant clauses, which indicated allowances for new machinery or plant, limited to the year of installation. The court concluded that spare parts, no matter how costly, could not be claimed for initial and additional depreciation allowances. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and the Department, ruling against the assessee's claim for depreciation allowances on diesel engines. The court aligned with the Bombay High Court's interpretation, emphasizing that machinery should be considered as a unit for depreciation purposes. The court rejected the Madras High Court's view and ordered the assessee to pay the costs of the Department, concluding the judgment in favor of the Department.
|
