9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to tax. Whereas we are concerned with the income which is not chargeable to tax, therefore, that judgment of Britannia Industries Ltd. [2004 (9) TMI 90 - CALCUTTA High Court] has no manner of application. In any case, the assessee cannot be heard to say that he should be allowed double deduction as held by the Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd.(1992 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court). The submission as regards tax effect is also without any substance because the appeal preferred by the Revenue indeed related to other questions as indicated above but the appeal was admitted with regard to this question. Therefore, it cannot be said that even under section 268A and assuming everything in favour of the assessee, the appeal was incompetent goin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf which provides as follows : 32AB.(1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, where an assessee, whose total income includes income chargeable to tax under the head Profits and gains of business or profession , has, out of such income He submitted that the applicability of section 32AB cannot even remotely be suggested to income which is not chargeable to tax. The question in the case is, whether the replantation subsidy received by the assessee is eligible for the benefit under section 32AB. He drew our attention to section 10(30) which provides as follows : in the case of an assessee who carries on the business of growing and manufacturing tea in India, the amount of any subsidy received from or through the Tea Boar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xiv) of the 1922 Act and section 35(2)(iv) of the 1961 Act is to indicate that there is a basic scheme, unspoken but clearly underlying the Acts, that the two allowances cannot be and are not intended to be granted in respect of the same asset or expenditure. These provisions mandate that the assessee should, in a case where the assessee qualifies for both the allowances, be granted the special allowance for scientific research and not the routine annual one for depreciation. Mr.Das, learned advocate for the assessee submitted that the point is covered in favour of the assessee by an earlier judgement of this Court in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. v. the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2005) 143 Taxman 325 (Cal) wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex Court was clear in laying down the principle in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 which cannot have a different meaning. The second submission advanced by Mr.Das was that the tax effect at the relevant point of time operative under Section 268A was ₹ 3 lakhs whereas the amount of subsidy received by the assessee in this case is below ₹ 3 lakhs. Mr.Agarwal, learned advocate for the Revenue replied that the judgment in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. cited by Mr.Das is distinguishable on facts. In so far as the second submission is concerned, he submitted that there were other questions involved in the appeal involving an expenditure of a sum of ₹ 31 lakhs approximately and an expenditure of a sum of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
