9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Disallowance of investment allowance and relief under section 80J on crafts acquired from the Government of India. 2. Interpretation of the term "person resident in India" in relation to the Government of India for tax purposes. 3. Computation of relief under section 80J based on capital without considering borrowed capital. 4. Claim for higher depreciation on crafts. 5. Treatment of borrowed capital in calculating relief under section 80J. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by a company against the disallowance of investment allowance and relief under section 80J on crafts acquired from the Government of India. The company contended that it was eligible for these benefits as the Government of India should not be considered a 'person resident in India' as per the Income-tax Act. The first appellate authority partially allowed the claim but restricted the benefits on certain grounds. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, accepted the company's contention and directed the allowance of investment allowance on crafts acquired from the Government of India, subject to certain conditions. 2. The main issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "person resident in India" in relation to the Government of India. The Tribunal disagreed with the revenue's argument that the Government of India could be considered a 'person resident in India'. It analyzed various provisions of the Act and concluded that the Government of India did not fall under the definition of a 'person resident in India'. The Tribunal highlighted that the intention of the statute was to restrict the allowance to purchases from entities other than 'a person resident in India' to avoid multiple benefits on the same asset. 3. The Tribunal also addressed the computation of relief under section 80J based on capital without considering borrowed capital. The company argued that borrowed capital should be included in the capital base for calculating relief under section 80J. However, due to a retrospective amendment pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the assessing officer for a fresh determination in accordance with the final decision of the Supreme Court. 4. Another issue raised was the claim for higher depreciation on the crafts. The Tribunal rejected this claim as it found that once the crafts were considered ships, they could not simultaneously be classified as plant and machinery for the purpose of claiming higher depreciation. 5. Lastly, the treatment of borrowed capital in calculating relief under section 80J was discussed. The Tribunal referred to a relevant case and decided to send back the issue for a fresh determination in line with the decision of the Supreme Court, considering the retrospective amendment pending adjudication. In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the allowance of investment allowance on crafts acquired from the Government of India, while remitting certain issues back to the assessing officer for further examination and decision.
|
