9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the new industrial undertakings qualified for tax exemption under section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. Whether the sum of Rs. 10,47,422 was allowable as a bad debt under section 10(2)(xi) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Qualification of New Industrial Undertakings for Tax Exemption under Section 15C: The Tribunal had to determine if the cement unit, new power house, chemical factory, and paper plants Nos. 2 and 3 constituted new industrial undertakings under section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the ITO for further investigation. After considering the remand report, the Tribunal concluded that the new paper machines Nos. 2 and 3 were independent units distinct from the old paper plant due to different machinery, raw materials, and production processes. The new power house and chemical factory were also found to be new industrial units. The Tribunal held that these units were not set up by transferring old machinery or plant. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's contention that separate accounts were necessary under section 15C, noting that the statements filed by the assessee showing computation of capital employed and profits earned were not challenged by the revenue. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd., holding that unabsorbed depreciation should be treated as part of current depreciation for the purpose of working out profits under section 15C. 2. Allowability of Bad Debt under Section 10(2)(xi): For the assessment year 1956-57, the Tribunal considered the assessee's claim for the bad debt of Rs. 10,47,422. The ITO had disallowed the claim, finding that the debt had not been written off in the relevant year and was not connected to the assessee's business. The Tribunal, however, found that the advances made to Rohtas Quarries Ltd. were for securing raw materials and were wholly and exclusively for the assessee's business purposes. The Tribunal held that the debt represented a trade debt and qualified as a bad debt under section 10(2)(xi). The Tribunal's findings were based on the facts that the advances were for business purposes, the entire output of Rohtas Quarries Ltd. was supplied to the assessee, and there was no material to suggest non-business reasons for the advances. Judgment: The High Court, considering the Supreme Court's decisions in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Indian Aluminium Company Ltd., upheld the Tribunal's findings. The Court noted that the new industrial undertakings fulfilled the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, including substantial fresh capital investment, employment of requisite labor, manufacture or production of articles, earning of profits attributable to the new undertaking, and maintaining a separate and distinct identity from the existing business. The Court also upheld the Tribunal's finding that the bad debt was allowable under section 10(2)(xi), as the advances were made for securing raw materials and were a part of the assessee's business. The Court answered the questions in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decisions for both assessment years.
|
