9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Claim of depreciation and extra shift allowance on locomotives and rolling stock for assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65.
Analysis: The case involved a railway company claiming depreciation on its locomotives and rolling stock at a rate of 10% and extra shift allowance for assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially disallowed the claim, leading the company to appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), where they succeeded. The AAC directed the ITO to recompute the chargeable profits after allowing the extra shift allowance. The revenue, being aggrieved, further appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the AAC's decision, dismissing the appeals. Subsequently, the Central Board of Direct Taxes referred a question to the High Court regarding the entitlement of the company to the extra shift allowance on locomotives and rolling stock based on the interpretation of the relevant rules. The dispute centered around the interpretation of Appendix I to Rule 5 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, concerning the allowance for depreciation of machinery and plant. The relevant rule provided for different percentages of depreciation based on the actual usage of the assets during the previous year. The specific issue was whether the railway company was entitled to an extra shift allowance on locomotives and rolling stock. The relevant table in Appendix I outlined rates for different classes of assets, including a special rate of 10% for locomotives, rolling stock, tramways, and railways used by concerns, excluding railway concerns. The High Court analyzed the rules and explanations provided under Appendix I, particularly focusing on the inscription "N.E.S.A." (Not Entitled to Special Allowance). The court held that the exclusion of "railway concerns" from the special rate did not entitle the company to claim the extra shift allowance. The court emphasized that the inscription "N.E.S.A." applied to specific items of machinery and plant, irrespective of whether the general or special rates were claimed. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting the rules in a manner consistent with the exceptions and exclusions specified. In conclusion, the High Court answered the question in the negative, ruling in favor of the revenue. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the relevant rules and their application to the railway company's claim for depreciation and extra shift allowance on locomotives and rolling stock. The decision clarified the scope of the inscription "N.E.S.A." and its impact on the company's entitlement to special rates, ultimately upholding the revenue's position in the matter.
|
