9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 respectively on account of disallowance under section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to development rebate on the lift installed in the block used for research and development on the basis that it is a plant or machinery ?" Out of these two questions, the first question is directly covered by a decision of this court in CIT v. Patel Brothers Co. Ltd. [1977] 106 ITR 424. Respectfully following the said decision of this court, we answer the first question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. So far as the second question refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... According to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, only road transport vehicles were excluded from the purview of section 33(1)(a) and riot any other type of machinery used for transport. He, therefore, held that the assessee-company was entitled to development rebate on the lift. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the lift could not be described as a road transport vehicle. The Tribunal further field that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was right in treating lift as plant or machinery. The Tribunal further observed that applying the test laid down by this court, in CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. [1974] 96 ITR 672, the assessee-company wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee-company in the year under consideration. Lift is a machinery or a mechanical device for transporting men and material from one place to another. It is, therefore, a machinery within the meaning of section 33(1)(a) of the Act. It is not disputed that the lift is used for the purpose of business carried on by the assessee-company. In fact, the Income-tax Officer did not refuse to grant development rebate because it was not wholly used for the purpose of business carried on by the assessee-company. As pointed out above, he rejected the assessee-company's claim only on the ground that it was machinery used for transporting men and material vertically from one place to another. The machinery used for transporting is not excluded fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
