9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Entitlement to development rebate on safe deposit lockers under section 33(6) of the Income Tax Act. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Karnataka pertains to the entitlement of a nationalized bank to development rebate on safe deposit lockers under section 33(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Officer initially allowed the development rebate on safe deposit locker cabinets, but the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax held that the bank was not entitled to the rebate due to the prohibition under section 33(6) of the Act. The Commissioner's view was that since the cabinets were installed in the office premises, the bank was not eligible for the development rebate. The bank appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the office premises should be interpreted narrowly as the place where administrative work is carried out, not where business activities are conducted. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that section 33(6) is a total bar if plant and machinery are installed in the office premises, without a narrow interpretation. Upon analyzing the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, it was noted that section 33(1)(a) allows a deduction for new machinery or plant wholly used for business purposes, subject to certain conditions. However, section 33(6) specifically prohibits the allowance of development rebate for machinery or plant installed in office premises or residential accommodations. The bank's counsel argued that banking business and administration cannot be separated, and the safe deposit lockers are located in a segregated area independent of the office premises. The Court rejected the first contention but found merit in the second argument based on guidelines indicating that the lockers are in an isolated strong room with restricted access, not used for administrative work. The Court concluded that the bank may be entitled to the development rebate for safe deposit lockers if they are located in an isolated area not used for administrative purposes. As the Tribunal failed to consider this aspect and make a decision based on legal principles, the Court declined to answer the question definitively, directing the Tribunal to rehear the case and decide accordingly after allowing the parties to present additional evidence if necessary.
|
