9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (10) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee's claim observing as under :-- " 5. I find that the appellant invested an amount of Rs. 90,754 on new kolhus and pans. These kolhus and pans were used by the farmers for production though not used by the appellant firm. The appellant-firm gave these kolhus and pans on hire to the farmers for production. As these are used for production, the appellant firm is entitled to investment allowance on the same. The ITO is, therefore, directed to allow the same as per provisions of law. " 3. The learned departmental representative contended that since the assessee is not using the kolhus and pans for production of articles or things and has given them for hire, it is not entitled to investment allowance. It was also contended that ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for the purposes specified. This view has been followed by the various Benches of this Tribunal and the learned departmental representative has not pointed out any authority to the contrary. We, therefore, hold that this cannot be a ground for rejecting the assessee's claim. 6. Under section 32A, investment allowance is admissible only on machinery which is installed in a small scale industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of manufacture or production of any article or thing or in any other industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of construction, manufacture or production of any article or thing. It is admitted in the case before us that the kolhus and pans have been hired out by the assessee to farmers who install ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. The oil mill was patently an industrial undertaking and was admittedly owned by the assessee and, therefore, the High Court held that although the oil mill was let out to some-one else the assessee was entitled to exemption. This judgment, therefore, is in relation to a different provisions of law in which different considerations were involved and does not help the assessee. The judgment of the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in Bhim Sem Shyam Lal Co. v. ITO [IT Appeal Nos. 1218 to 1220 (Delhi) of 1982, dated 3-11-1983] merely dealt with the question whether a person who hires out kolhu and pan is entitled to investment allowance. The Bench following the case of First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. accepted the assessee's claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
