Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2015 (8) TMI 572 - HC - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Double deduction claim under sections 32A and 32AB.
3. Interpretation of statutory provisions and CBDT circulars.
4. Validity of Tribunal's order.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Entitlement to Investment Allowance under Section 32A
The core issue was whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the investment allowance under section 32A for plant and machinery installed between April 1, 1987, and March 31, 1988, in the assessment year 1989-90. The assessee, a Central Government public sector undertaking, claimed a deduction of Rs. 30,72,03,504 as investment allowance on machinery worth Rs. 1,06,41,24,179 installed during the specified period. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, arguing that the assessee had already availed deductions under section 32AB in previous years, and allowing section 32A would result in double deduction.

Issue 2: Double Deduction Claim under Sections 32A and 32AB
The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that since the assessee had claimed deductions under section 32AB in earlier years, it could not claim investment allowance under section 32A for the same assets, as this would amount to double deduction. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim, citing that the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (8B) of section 32A permitted such a deduction for the assessment year 1989-90.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and CBDT Circulars
The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds that it lacked reasoning and did not consider the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and CBDT Circular No. 559, dated May 4, 1990, which clarified that investment allowance could be claimed as an option to the deduction allowable under the Investment Deposit Account Scheme (section 32AB). The court noted that the combined effect of section 32A(8C) and section 32AB(10) was that an assessee could opt for either section 32A or section 32AB for a block of five years, starting from the initial assessment year.

Issue 4: Validity of Tribunal's Order
The court acknowledged that the Tribunal's order was cryptic and lacked detailed reasoning. However, instead of remanding the matter back to the Tribunal, the court decided to examine the facts and render its opinion. The court observed that the intention of the Legislature was to grant the benefit of investment allowance under section 32A for plant and machinery installed during the specified period, even if the assessee had claimed deductions under section 32AB in previous years. The court concluded that the provisions of section 32A(8B) clearly allowed the investment allowance for the assessment year 1989-90, and there was no question of double deduction since the actual cost of the plant and machinery would be reduced by the amount claimed under section 32AB.

Conclusion:
The court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order allowing the investment allowance under section 32A for the specified period. The question was answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, affirming the entitlement to the investment allowance under section 32A for the assessment year 1989-90. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates