9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim of development rebate for road transport vehicles purchased before April 1, 1960 - Interpretation of proviso to section 10(2)(vib) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 - Applicability of the proviso retrospectively - Uniform application of the proviso to all assessees - Discrimination based on different previous years adopted by assessees. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dealt with a consolidated reference for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 regarding the claim of development rebate for road transport vehicles purchased before April 1, 1960. The main question was whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for development rebate under section 10(2)(vib) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The proviso added by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1960, stated that no allowance shall be made for machinery or plant consisting of road transport vehicles. The court emphasized that income-tax is charged according to the relevant Finance Act, and the proviso was in force from April 1, 1960, throughout both assessment years. Therefore, no development rebate could be claimed for road transport vehicles during those years. The court rejected the contention that development rebate should be allowed for vehicles purchased before April 1, 1960, regardless of the assessment year, as it would go against the clear intention of Parliament. The judgment cited the Gujarat High Court decision supporting this view. Additionally, the court addressed the argument of discrimination based on different previous years adopted by assessees, stating that the proviso applies uniformly to all assessees for assessment years starting from April 1, 1960. The court highlighted that Parliament's policy was not to allow the rebate for road transport vehicles from that date onwards, ensuring no discrimination among assessees. The judgment also referenced a Supreme Court decision upholding the validity of the proviso. In conclusion, the court held that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for development rebate for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. The judgment did not award costs for the reference.
|
