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

TMI Blog

Home

1988 (12) TMI 153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0, the government had fixed the price of levy sugar at a level lower than what they had fixed for the prior year and against this order that company had filed appeals. Interim orders were passed by the High Court allowing the assessee to sell levy sugar at a higher price but later the writ petition was dismissed. The excess amount which they had realised and which had become repayable had been credited to a separate account. In respect of such accounts the assessee was obliged by another statute called the Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund Act, 1976 to deposit it with the government. Against this also writs were filed and it is pending with the Supreme Court. This amount of Rs. 3,50,591 was in respect of the earlier years to be credited to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing found that the computer is used in the manufacturing process the claim cannot be denied. We understand the Income-tax Officer's objection on the basis that the computer is an office machine. The Bombay High Court in the cases of CIT v. I.B.M. World Trade Corpn. [1981] 130 ITR 739 and CIT v. International Computers Ltd. [1981] 131 ITR 1 have held that it is not an office appliance. Therefore, investment allowance cannot be denied. Shri Kuppuswamy, for the department submitted that computers would come under explanation to Item 22 of the 11th Schedule. Therefore the assessee would not be eligible for the deduction. This is also not an acceptable submission. 11th Schedule contains a list of articles the production of which would not be eli .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 24/[1987] 165 ITR 550 wherein the High Court has accepted that a marine products division is a new industrial undertaking eligible for deduction under s.80J. He had also placed reliance on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Poyilakkada Fisheries (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (sic). We are afraid that both these decisions are not helpful to the assessee. The issue before us is whether the assessee is entitled to investment allowance. In order to be eligible for investment allowance it should satisfy the conditions laid down in s.32A(2)(b)(iii). This requires that the ship or aircraft or machinery or plant shall be installed in an industrial undertaking for the purposes of business, construction, manufacture or production of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... attempt of the state government to levy central sales tax on the sale of sea food. Under s.5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, sale or purchase of goods should be deemed to take place in the course of the export of the goods out of the territory of India only if the sale or purchase either occasions such export or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India. Sub-section (3) of s.5 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of these goods out of the territory of India shall also be deemed to be in the course of such exports if such last sale or purch .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aler and the consumer regard both as shrimps, prawns and lobsters." Thus, it would be seen that according to the Supreme Court there is no change at all. That means there is no new article produced, manufactured or even processed. What the Supreme Court had laid down is the law in the country. In so far as Calcutta High Court has held that in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. that there is a manufacture or production it is against the ratio of the Supreme Court in the above cited case. Therefore Calcutta High Court cannot be accepted as an authority for this purpose. Similarly, the decision of the Special Bench also cannot be taken as a guideline. Since the decision of the Special Bench was given without considering the authority of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates