9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions regarding depreciation on assets received as gifts. 2. Application of Explanation 2 to section 43(1) for determining actual cost of assets. 3. Allowance of depreciation on the value of a gifted asset. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Kerala dealt with the assessment of M/s. Kerala Premo Pipe Factory Ltd. for the years 1969-70 and 1970-71. The primary issues revolved around the interpretation of provisions related to depreciation on assets received as gifts and the application of Explanation 2 to section 43(1) for determining the actual cost of such assets. The assessee, a limited company, received a fork lift as a gift from the United States of America and claimed depreciation on the total amount spent, including customs duty, insurance, and freight. However, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed depreciation on the value of the gift, restricting it to the expenses incurred by the assessee. The Tribunal discussed the matter in a previous year's assessment, leading to the current references before the High Court. The crux of the issue lay in the interpretation of Section 32(1)(ii) and Explanation 2 to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act. The counsel for the revenue argued that depreciation should only be allowed on the lesser of the written down value and market value of the asset, as per Explanation 2. On the other hand, the assessee contended that such a strict interpretation would defeat the purpose of the statute and relied on precedents to support their argument. The court noted the subtle and tricky nature of the points involved, emphasizing the need for a balanced interpretation that upholds the intent of the law while granting due benefits to the assessee. The court referenced past decisions, including CIT v. Solomon & Sons and Francis Vallabarayar v. CIT, which provided insights on determining the "actual cost" to the assessee in cases of inheritance or bequest. The assessee sought to apply similar principles to a case of a gift, drawing parallels from relevant judgments. However, the revenue's counsel highlighted the changes in the law post-amendments and referred to a Full Bench decision in CIT v. E. C. Jacob to argue for a different approach under the current provisions of the Income Tax Act. Ultimately, the High Court declined to answer the questions of law directly and directed the Tribunal to reexamine the matter in light of the principles and decisions discussed in the judgment. The court stressed the importance of a thorough reconsideration by the Tribunal to ensure a proper determination of the issue at hand. The references were disposed of without costs, leaving the final decision to the Tribunal for further deliberation and analysis in accordance with the law and the court's guidance.
|
