1978 (1) TMI 15 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of normal allowance under Machinery and Plant in Appendix I-5(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
2. Determination of whether interest paid for moneys borrowed for purchasing assets forms part of the actual cost of the assets.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Tribunal referred the question of law regarding the interpretation of the normal allowance under Machinery and Plant in Appendix I-5(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The dispute centered around whether the normal allowance should be based on the actual depreciation allowed or on a hypothetical figure of normal depreciation if the machinery had worked for 180 days or more. The Tribunal initially held that the normal allowance refers to the depreciation actually allowed. However, the High Court disagreed, emphasizing that the normal allowance should be calculated based on the full depreciation allowance permissible for the plant and machinery, irrespective of the actual number of working days. The Explanation in the Rules clarified that the normal allowance should be determined as if the machinery had worked for 180 days or more. Therefore, the Court held that the Tribunal's interpretation was incorrect, and the assessee was entitled to a higher normal allowance.

Issue 2:
The second question involved whether interest paid for moneys borrowed for purchasing assets should form part of the actual cost of the assets. The Supreme Court precedent in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT was cited, establishing that interest paid under such circumstances does form part of the actual cost of the assets. As a result, the Court concluded that the sum representing interest paid by the company for moneys borrowed for asset purchase should be considered as part of the actual cost of the assets, entitling the assessee to depreciation and development rebate on such cost. This question was resolved in favor of the assessee based on the Supreme Court's ruling.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment clarified the interpretation of the normal allowance under the Income Tax Rules and affirmed that interest paid for asset purchase should be included in the actual cost of the assets. The decision favored the assessee on both issues, emphasizing the importance of correctly determining allowances and costs in tax assessments.