2009 (2) TMI 389 - HC - Income Tax

Special Deduction- The assessee is a co-operative society running a sugar factory. For the assessment year 1988-89 the assessee claimed expenditure including replacement of complete centrifugal machine unit ECT crane unit and cane carrier including erection charges as maintenance expenditure. For the assessment years 1988-89 1989-90 and 1990-91 the assessee claimed the benefit of section 80P(2) on interest earned from its members on advances/credit facilities. The Assessing Officer disallowed the above claims. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer s orders on both the issues. The Tribunal held that the interest earned from members of the assessee co-operative society on advances/credit facilities provided to them would be eligible for deduction under section 80P(2) (a) (i). The Tribunal further held that where the earlier centrifugal machine unit was demolished and a new unit installed in its place and the ECT crane was brought in as a substitute of earlier manual machines it is clearly a case of replacement and accordingly allowed the appeal. held that- (i) the requisite details in order to claim exemption and the necessary proof that the co-operative society was engaged in carrying on any of the several businesses referred to in sub-section (2) of section 80P was not forthcoming. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration. (ii) that there was no material proof of any increase in the manufacturing capacity the details regarding the production capacity remaining constant even after replacement of the machine unit. Thus the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration.

Summary

The High Court of Madras delivered a judgment in a case where the Revenue appealed against an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The relevant assessment years were 1990-91, 1988-89, and 1989-90. The two questions of law raised were whether the assessee was eligible for benefits under section 80P(2)(a) for interest received from members, and whether the replacement of machinery could be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal allowed both claims, but the Revenue challenged the decision. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order on both issues, citing Supreme Court cases as guidance. The Court remitted the matters back to the Tribunal and Commissioner of Appeals for further consideration based on the Supreme Court's observations. The appeals were disposed of with no costs awarded. This case highlights the importance of thorough examination of legal provisions and documentation to determine eligibility for tax benefits and treatment of expenditures.