1978 (7) TMI 29 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred on anchoring Walawhan Dam and cement grouting of Shirawata Dam qualifies for development rebate u/s 33 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

Summary:

Issue 1: Qualification for Development Rebate
The assessee, Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Company Ltd., incurred significant expenditure on anchoring Walawhan Dam and cement grouting Shirawata Dam using the Coyne method. The assessee argued that these modifications resulted in the creation of new assets, thus qualifying for development rebate u/s 33 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The ITO and AAC rejected this claim, stating that the dams retained their essential identity and no new dams were created.

Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention, noting that the substantial expenditure incurred resulted in significant improvements to the dams, effectively creating new assets. The Tribunal directed the ITO to allow the development rebate.

Revenue's Argument:
The revenue contended that the strengthening of the dams did not constitute the installation of new plant or machinery as required u/s 33 of the Act. They argued that the existing dams were merely strengthened, not replaced or newly constructed.

Court's Analysis:
The court examined the Coyne method of anchoring, which involved extensive grouting and the insertion of high tensile steel cables to enhance the dams' stability. The court noted that the term "plant" should be given a wide meaning, including parts of a plant or machinery. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel, which emphasized a broad interpretation of "plant."

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the substantial expenditure incurred by the assessee resulted in the installation of new plant within the meaning of s. 33 of the Act. The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, allowing the development rebate for the expenditure incurred on anchoring Walawhan Dam and cement grouting Shirawata Dam.

Final Judgment:
The court answered the question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, and directed the revenue to pay the costs of the assessee.