9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of "actual cost" under section 43(1) of the IT Act for depreciation and investment allowance on penalty paid to customs authorities amounting to Rs. 20,000. Analysis: The appellant, a private limited company, appealed for the assessment year 1982-83, challenging the CIT(A)'s decision that the penalty paid to customs authorities of Rs. 20,000 could not be considered as the actual cost of machinery, thereby disallowing depreciation and investment allowance. The appellant argued that the penalty was imposed due to a rule violation, not a legal infraction, and should be capitalized as part of the machinery's actual cost. The appellant relied on various legal precedents to support their claim, emphasizing that the penalty was necessary to obtain possession of the imported machinery. The Revenue contended that the penalty did not create a tangible asset or enhance the value of existing assets. Upon considering the arguments, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's claim. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument, stating that the expenditure was related to an asset and should be capitalized as part of the actual cost of the imported machinery. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. vs. CIT, the Tribunal interpreted "actual cost" in accordance with accounting principles, which include all necessary expenditure to bring assets into existence and working condition. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty of Rs. 20,000 was essential to obtain possession of the machinery and therefore should be considered part of the actual cost. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Income Tax Officer to allow depreciation and investment allowance based on the increased cost of the machinery. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, granting them the relief sought.
|
