9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Entitlement to investment allowance under section 32A(2)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: The judgment of the Appellate Tribunal ITAT BOMBAY-D revolves around the issue of whether the assessee, a company engaged in exhibiting films in theatres, is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A(2)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had claimed investment allowance of Rs. 50,000 for installing various machineries like air-conditioning plant, water pump, projector, screen, electrical fittings, cinema chairs, and curtains. Both the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected this claim, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The crux of the argument presented by the assessee's counsel was that the process of exhibiting films involves both mechanical and human activity, and the visual and sound image produced should be considered as an 'article' or 'thing' within the meaning of the relevant provision. The counsel contended that the dictionary meaning of these terms is broad enough to encompass the image and sound produced during film projection. On the other hand, the departmental representative argued that the image on the screen is merely an illusion without physical existence, and for something to qualify as an 'article' or 'thing', it must be a property capable of marketability, especially in the context of industrial undertakings. The Tribunal delved into the interpretation of 'manufacture' and 'production' in the context of the Income-tax Act, citing the Supreme Court's definition that 'manufacture' involves bringing into existence a new substance, not just producing a change in an existing substance. The Tribunal analyzed whether the assessee's activities could be considered as producing an 'article' or 'thing', emphasizing that the essence of the business lay in providing entertainment to the audience rather than creating a tangible property. The Tribunal also considered precedents where a broader meaning was given to 'production', but the end result was a physical substance, unlike in the case of film exhibition. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not qualify as an industrial undertaking engaged in the production of an 'article' or 'thing' eligible for investment allowance under section 32A. It was determined that the entertainment provided by the film projection did not result in a saleable property that could be further marketed, thus rendering the assessee ineligible for the investment allowance. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities to reject the claim for investment allowance.
|
