9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the Tribunal in ignoring the provisions of rule 19A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 2. Entitlement of the assessee to a deduction under section 80J without differentiating between own capital and borrowed capital. 3. Justification of the Tribunal in allowing a higher deduction under section 80J. Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of the Tribunal in Ignoring the Provisions of Rule 19A of the I.T. Rules, 1962: The Tribunal's decision to ignore rule 19A was based on a misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. v. State of M.P. The Tribunal believed that borrowed capital should be treated at par with the assessee's own capital for calculating the capital employed under section 80J. However, the court clarified that the Supreme Court's decision did not pertain to section 80J or rule 19A. The court emphasized that the Tribunal had no authority to disregard rules made under the Act, as assessing authorities cannot question the validity of any provisions or rules under a taxing Act. The court cited precedents such as K. S. Venkataraman and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Madras and Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. to support this point. 2. Entitlement of the Assessee to a Deduction Under Section 80J Without Differentiating Between Own Capital and Borrowed Capital: The Tribunal's view that no distinction should be made between the assessee's own capital and borrowed capital was found to be incorrect. The court noted that rule 19A(3) specifically requires the deduction of borrowed moneys in determining the capital employed for section 80J. Historical context was provided, showing that similar rules existed since 1949 under the 1922 Act, and Parliament was presumed to have approved this interpretation when enacting section 80J. The court also highlighted that in the business world, "capital" typically refers to net worth, excluding borrowings, which supports the validity of rule 19A(3). The court dismissed the decisions of the Calcutta, Madras, and Allahabad High Courts, which had previously ruled against the validity of rule 19A(3), stating that these decisions did not consider important principles of statutory interpretation. 3. Justification of the Tribunal in Allowing a Higher Deduction Under Section 80J: The Tribunal's decision to enhance the deduction under section 80J from Rs. 13,975 to Rs. 67,548 was based on the incorrect premise that borrowed capital should be included in the computation of capital employed. The court reiterated that rule 19A(3) mandates the deduction of borrowed moneys and debts in computing the capital employed. Therefore, the Tribunal's enhancement of the deduction was unjustified, as it contravened the statutory provisions and established rules. Conclusion: The court concluded that: 1. The Tribunal was not justified in ignoring rule 19A(3). 2. The Tribunal was not justified in holding that borrowed capital should be included in the computation of capital employed. 3. The Tribunal was not justified in enhancing the deduction under section 80J from Rs. 13,975 to Rs. 67,548. There was no order as to costs of this reference.
|
