9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether construction of a road amounts to the manufacture or production of an article or thing for claiming investment allowance. 2. Whether the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on the road roller purchased for the construction of a road. Analysis: 1. The revenue challenged the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding the assessee-firm's eligibility for investment allowance on a road roller used for road construction. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) contended that the road roller did not manufacture or produce any finished product, only leveling the tar and metal on the road. The ITO rejected the claim, stating that the road roller's use did not meet the criteria under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee, a firm of contractors, argued that road construction involved a process using labor and machinery, including a road roller. They cited various authorities to support their claim, emphasizing that the end-product of road construction was different from the raw materials used. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim, considering the differences between raw materials and the final product, the involvement of labor and machinery, and the distinct end-product in the road construction process. 3. The Appellate Tribunal noted that previous decisions did not directly address section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding construction activities. However, in cases where composite activities led to the main activity of construction, investment allowance was granted. The Tribunal emphasized that a road could be considered an article or thing, not prohibited by the Act, and directed the ITO to examine if the road roller was used alongside other machinery in a composite activity of road construction. The Tribunal restored the matter to the ITO for further examination. 4. The Tribunal concluded that a contractor engaged in road construction could claim investment allowance for plant and machinery, including a road roller, if all composite activities preceding the road roller's use were carried out. The decision highlighted the eligibility for investment allowance in road construction activities and emphasized the need for a comprehensive examination by the ITO to determine the validity of the claim. 5. Ultimately, the appeal of the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that the matter was restored to the ITO for further assessment regarding the eligibility of the assessee for investment allowance on the road roller used in road construction.
|
