9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of half of the profits from baby food and cheese units in the capital employed for tax holiday purposes under Rule 19(5). 2. Inclusion of grant-in-aid from the Government of Gujarat in the capital employed for tax holiday purposes under Rule 19(1)(d). Detailed Analysis: 1. Inclusion of Half of the Profits from Baby Food and Cheese Units in the Capital Employed for Tax Holiday Purposes Under Rule 19(5): The primary issue was whether half of the profits from the baby food and cheese units for the year ending March 31, 1963, should be included in the computation of capital employed for the purposes of tax holiday under Section 84 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 19 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's contention based on the precedent set by CIT v. Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd. [1976] 104 ITR 510 (Guj), which concluded that half of the profits should be included in the capital employed. Consequently, the court answered the question in the affirmative, favoring the assessee and against the revenue for the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65, and 1965-66. The revenue was directed to pay the costs of these references. 2. Inclusion of Grant-in-Aid from the Government of Gujarat in the Capital Employed for Tax Holiday Purposes Under Rule 19(1)(d): The second issue was whether the entire amount of grant-in-aid given by the Government of Gujarat for the purchase of machinery for the baby food and cheese units should be included in the capital employed for tax holiday purposes. The assessee argued that the grant-in-aid should be considered as part of the capital employed, as it was used to acquire machinery and equipment for the units. However, the Tribunal and lower authorities rejected this claim, stating that the grant-in-aid was a general grant not specifically intended for acquiring plant and machinery. The court examined the Government resolution and concluded that the grant-in-aid was not specifically for acquiring plant and machinery, thus supporting the Tribunal's finding. The assets acquired with the grant-in-aid were considered as assets purchased by the assessee and subject to depreciation, falling under Rule 19(1)(a). The court rejected the argument that the assets should be treated as acquired by gift and thus evaluated differently. The court emphasized that the valuation of assets entitled to depreciation should be based on their written down value as defined in Rule 19(6)(iv) read with Section 43(6) of the Income Tax Act. The court also addressed the broader contention that the rule should not frustrate the main purpose of Section 84, which is to grant tax holiday based on the capital employed. The court held that the prescribed manner of computation under Rule 19 must be followed, and the legislature's intent in differentiating assets based on their entitlement to depreciation was rational and harmonious. The court concluded that the assets in question were correctly evaluated based on their written down value. Thus, the court answered the questions in the affirmative and in favor of the revenue and against the assessee for the references related to the inclusion of grant-in-aid in the capital employed. The assessee was directed to pay the costs of these references to the Commissioner of Income-tax.
|
