1996 (2) TMI 6 - SC - Income Tax

Whether the Tribunal was in law justified in holding that the amendment order made by the Income-tax Officer was not sustainable to the extent to which it purported to withdraw development rebate admissible to the assessee in respect of that part of the machinery/plant which was the subject-matter of the hiring agreement - question formulated by the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Act is answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 34(3)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the withdrawal of development rebate.
2. Application of the definition of "transfer" under section 2(47) of the Act in the context of the case.
3. Determination of whether the lease agreement constitutes a transfer under section 34(3)(b) of the Act.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Allahabad High Court rejecting the application filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involved the withdrawal of development rebate by the Income-tax Officer based on an amendment order dated March 30, 1970. The central issue revolved around whether the lease agreement entered into by the assessee constituted a transfer under section 34(3)(b) of the Act, justifying the withdrawal of the development rebate granted earlier.

The Supreme Court analyzed the statutory provisions relevant to the case, including section 2(47), section 33, and section 34(3)(b) of the Income-tax Act. The court specifically focused on the definition of "transfer" under section 2(47) and the conditions outlined in section 34(3)(b) for the withdrawal of development rebate in case of sale or transfer of machinery or plant within eight years of acquisition or installation.

The court deliberated on the argument presented by both parties regarding the interpretation of the term "otherwise transferred" in section 34(3)(b). The Revenue contended that the lease agreement amounted to a transfer, while the assessee argued that the transaction did not constitute a transfer as defined under the Act. The court emphasized the importance of exclusive ownership and use of machinery for claiming development rebate under section 33(1)(a).

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the lease agreement resulted in the machinery being "otherwise transferred" to the lessee, Hindustan Lever Limited, before the expiry of eight years from acquisition. The court interpreted the term "transfer" broadly, considering the context and purpose of the relevant provisions. Citing the decision of the Kerala High Court, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, allowing the appeal and setting aside the decisions of the lower courts.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the application of section 34(3)(b) in cases where machinery or plant is leased out, leading to a loss of exclusive possession and use by the assessee. The court's interpretation of the term "transfer" under the Income-tax Act underscored the significance of maintaining ownership and utilization of assets for claiming development rebates, ultimately upholding the withdrawal of rebate in the present case.