9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the date when the assessee's business was set up. 2. Eligibility for investment allowance as a small-scale industry. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of the date when the assessee's business was set up: The primary contention revolves around the date the assessee's business was set up. The assessee argued that the business was set up from 1-4-1975, while the Income Tax Officer (ITO) contended it was set up only on 15-10-1975, the date when commercial production commenced. The ITO disallowed the expenditure incurred between 1-4-1975 and 15-10-1975 as 'pre-production expenses'. The first appellate authority upheld the ITO's decision, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CWT v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. and CIT v. Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. The assessee presented several facts to support its claim, including the completion of the building and machinery erection by January 1975, the import and local purchase of raw materials, and various correspondences indicating readiness for production. The director's report stated that production commenced on 1-4-1975, with regular production starting on 15-10-1975 due to initial problems in the process. The Tribunal noted that the machinery was installed and raw materials were available by 1-4-1975. The delay in regular production was due to technical hitches, such as imperfect lagging causing heat losses and the need to alter the current feeding system. The Tribunal emphasized that the nature of these hitches should determine the actual date of setting up the business. The Tribunal found the assessee's facts compelling, indicating that the business was set up by 1-4-1975, as all formalities were completed by the end of the preceding accounting year. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's case, stating that the matter should be viewed from a commonsense and business perspective. 2. Eligibility for investment allowance as a small-scale industry: The assessee claimed it was a small-scale industry and thus entitled to investment allowance. The first appellate authority found that, according to the Explanation to section 32(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the aggregate value of the machinery and plant installed should not exceed Rs. 7.5 lakhs. The assessee's assets exceeded this limit. The assessee argued that it qualified as a small-scale industry under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. However, the Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, stating that the definition under the Income-tax Act was applicable, and thus the assessee was not entitled to the investment allowance. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal determined that the assessee's business was set up on 1-4-1975, allowing the related expenses. However, the claim for investment allowance was rejected as the assessee did not meet the definition of a small-scale industry under the applicable section of the Income-tax Act.
|
