1978 (10) TMI 36 - HC - Income Tax

Income Tax Act, Jurisdiction Of High Court, Recovery Proceedings, Refund Of Tax, Treasury Officer, Writ Jurisdiction

Summary

Issues:
- Whether uninstalled machinery should be considered in computing the capital employed for the purpose of relief under s. 80J(3).

Analysis:
The case involved a limited company's claim for relief under s. 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1969-70. The company had purchased machinery worth Rs. 8,33,032 for an Expoxy Plant but had not yet installed it. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the claim for relief under s. 80J on the grounds that the machinery was not in use due to non-installation. The Appellate Tribunal, however, held that the capital employed should include the amount spent on the machinery, even if it was not yet installed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant rules, particularly r. 19A(2)(ii), which deals with assets acquired by purchase not entitled to depreciation. The Tribunal's conclusion was supported by the Calcutta High Court and the Karnataka High Court in similar cases, as well as by the House of Lords in England. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation, emphasizing that the concept of "capital employed" does not necessarily require the actual use of assets in the business. Instead, it focuses on the money invested in purchasing assets. Therefore, the uninstalled machinery should be considered in computing the capital employed for the purpose of relief under s. 80J(3). The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the Commissioner to pay the costs of the reference.