9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Entitlement to development rebate under section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for a partnership firm running a hotel. 2. Interpretation of the provisions of section 33(1)(a) and (b) (B) (iv)(b) of the Act regarding the eligibility for rebate. 3. Application of sub-section (6) of section 33 in disallowing the rebate claimed by the petitioner. 4. Clarification on the distinction between a hotel and a guest-house under the provisions of section 33. 5. Determination of whether the petitioner qualifies for the development rebate based on the specific circumstances of the case. 6. Direction to the Income-tax Officer to modify the order of assessment based on the judgment. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a partnership firm operating a hotel in Bangalore City that claimed a development rebate under section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for certain installations in the hotel during the assessment year 1971-72. The Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner disallowed the rebate on the grounds that the petitioner, not being an Indian company approved by the Central Government, was ineligible for the rebate as per the proviso to sub-section (6) of section 33. The petitioner challenged this decision through a writ petition. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of section 33, emphasizing that the denial of the rebate based on the petitioner not being an Indian company approved by the Central Government was untenable. It clarified that the petitioner, as an assessee running a hotel not falling under specific clauses, fell under the residuary clause of section 33(1)(b)(B)(iv). The court highlighted that sub-section (6) of section 33 restricts the deduction of development rebate for machinery or plant installed after March 31, 1965, in certain premises, but it does not apply to the petitioner's case. The judgment delved into the distinction between a hotel and a guest-house under the Act, noting that the expression "guest-house" in the provisions should not be equated with a hotel where customers pay for services. The court determined that the petitioner, having installed machinery and plant in the hotel premises for business purposes without using them for office, residential, or gratuitous guest accommodation, was entitled to the rebate claimed. Consequently, the court set aside the orders of the Commissioner and the Income-tax Officer disallowing the development rebate and directed the Income-tax Officer to modify the assessment order accordingly. Additionally, the judgment addressed a secondary contention regarding depreciation allowance for a lift installation, which was not pressed by the petitioner, leading to the disposal of the petition with no costs incurred by either party.
|
