1992 (4) TMI 3 - SC - Income Tax

Depreciation - assessee claimed depreciation on the written down value of roads constructed by it as forming part of the cost of the factory building and also claimed development rebate on industrial transport used for transporting raw materials and finished goods within the factory premises - revenue appeal is dismissed

Issues Involved:

1. Depreciation on roads constructed within factory premises.
2. Classification of roads as part of the factory building or plant.
3. Applicability of the Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1983.
4. Entitlement to development rebate on industrial transport.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Depreciation on Roads Constructed within Factory Premises:

The primary issue in these appeals was whether roads constructed within the factory premises qualify for depreciation under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed depreciation on the written down value of roads, arguing that they form part of the factory building. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this claim, but the Tribunal allowed it, following an earlier order. The High Court declined to call for a reference, leading to the Revenue's special leave petition.

The court held that roads within factory premises, used for business activities like transporting raw materials and finished products, are integral to the factory building. The court emphasized that the term "building" should not be confined to its dictionary meaning but should include roads as necessary adjuncts for the business.

2. Classification of Roads as Part of the Factory Building or Plant:

The Tribunal and various High Courts had differing views on whether roads should be classified as part of the building or as plant. The Bombay High Court in CIT v. Colour-Chem Ltd. [1977] 106 ITR 323 held that roads within factory premises are part of the building. The court in this judgment agreed with this interpretation, stating that roads are necessary for the business and should be considered part of the factory building for depreciation purposes.

3. Applicability of the Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1983:

The Revenue argued that the inclusion of roads in the definition of "building" in the Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1983, effective from April 2, 1983, indicated that roads were not considered part of the building before this date. The court rejected this argument, stating that the amendment was a clarification and not a change in the law. The consistent interpretation by various High Courts that roads are part of the building was accepted by the rule-making authority.

4. Entitlement to Development Rebate on Industrial Transport:

The assessee also claimed a development rebate on industrial transport used within the factory premises. This claim was initially disallowed by the Income-tax Officer but later allowed by the Tribunal. The court did not specifically address this issue in detail, focusing primarily on the depreciation of roads.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that roads within factory premises are integral to the factory building and eligible for depreciation under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act. The appeals were dismissed, except for Civil Appeal No. 1404 of 1991, which was partly allowed, directing the Income-tax Officer to compute roads as buildings and grant depreciation accordingly. The court emphasized that the interpretation of "building" should be broad and inclusive, aligning with the purpose of the Act to compute net taxable income fairly.

← Previous Next →