9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the agreement for technical collaboration and the capitalization of payment for development rebate and depreciation. 2. Determination of whether the entire lump sum payment to collaborators should be considered as the actual cost of plant and machinery for allowing depreciation and development rebate. Analysis: The case involved a private limited company engaged in manufacturing welding electrodes, which made a lump sum payment to technical collaborators for guidance and technical help in setting up a plant. The dispute arose regarding the capitalization of this payment for development rebate and depreciation purposes. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed only 20% of the payment to be capitalized towards the actual cost of plant and machinery, leading to the reference to the High Court. The High Court analyzed the terms of the collaboration agreement, emphasizing that the entire lump sum payment was for the purpose of bringing the plant into existence and operational condition. The court highlighted the inclusive definition of "plant" under the Income Tax Act, which encompasses any article or object used in business operations. The court cited precedents to support the broad interpretation of the term "plant" to include both tangible and intangible assets necessary for business activities. Addressing the contention that technical knowledge does not depreciate, the court referred to a previous judgment acknowledging that intangible assets like technical knowledge can become obsolete over time. The court upheld the principle that all expenditure essential for establishing and operating fixed assets should be included in the actual cost of plant and machinery for depreciation and development rebate calculations. Consequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the entire lump sum payment to collaborators should be considered as the actual cost of plant and machinery. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to depreciation and development rebate as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The court answered the first question in the negative, favoring the assessee, and deemed it unnecessary to address the second question. Each party was directed to bear its own costs in the reference.
|
