1987 (1) TMI 142 - AT - Income Tax

Profit And Gains From Newly Established Undertakings, Deductions, Written Down Value, Actual Cost

Summary

Issues:
The judgment deals with the computation of capital employed for the purposes of deduction u/s 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue 1: Valuation of Plant and Machinery
The dispute revolves around the value of plant and machinery taken over by the assessee at their book value versus the written down value as per the income-tax records of the firm. The assessee argues that the cost of acquisition should be considered for computing capital employed under section 80J, while the department insists on using the written down value. The Commissioner (Appeals) supported this view, emphasizing that only the written down value should be taken into account for section 80J purposes.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Relevant Provisions
The parties presented arguments based on Explanation 1 and Explanation 4 to section 80J(1A) regarding the value of plant and machinery. The assessee's representative highlighted that the ITO had previously used the book value for granting depreciation, questioning the change in approach for computing capital employed under section 80J. The departmental representative stressed that section 80J deduction is available to the industry, not the assessee, and thus, the written down value should be the sole consideration.

Judgment and Analysis:
After considering the submissions and relevant provisions, the Tribunal clarified that section 80J(1A) governs the computation of capital employed in an industrial undertaking, distinct from determining the actual cost for depreciation under section 43. The Tribunal noted the challenge in cases where ownership of an industrial undertaking changes, as in the present case. It was established that the new owner should not solely rely on the book value for computing capital employed under section 80J. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that depreciation on book value implies the same value for section 80J purposes. Emphasizing the distinction between actual cost for depreciation and cost of acquisition for section 80J, the Tribunal held that the written down value in the hands of the industrial undertaking before takeover should be considered for section 80J deduction.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the written down value of the assets in the hands of the industrial undertaking before acquisition by the assessee should be used for computing capital employed under section 80J.