9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (7) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the full depreciation in respect of machinery which was used partly for the construction of new buildings and partly for installation of new machinery ? " The assessee is M/s. Mysore Iron and Steel Ltd., Bhadravati. During the assessment year in question it claimed development rebate under section 33 of the Act in respect of certain machinery consisting of air-compressors, overhead trollies and other equipment which had been used by it for the purpose of constructing new buildings for the expansion of its existing factory and for installation of new machinery. The value of the machinery so used was Rs. 8,53,960. The Income-tax Officer declined to allow the rebate on the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Ltd. v. Bhagyamma [1975] 1 Kar LJ 17 (Kar), in which the question for consideration before this court was whether an employee of a person who had been engaged as a contractor by Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., to construct certain buildings for its use could claim compensation from Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. This court held that since the construction of buildings which had been entrusted to an independent contractor was not the business of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., it was not liable to pay the compensation. On the basis of the above decision it was urged by Sri Rajasekharamurthy that since the construction of buildings was not part of the business of the assessee in this case, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a business. However wide the meaning of the expression may be, its limits are implicit in it. The purpose shall be for the purpose of the business, that is to say, the expenditure incurred shall be for the carrying on of the business and the assessee shall incur it in his capacity as a person carrying on the business. " The above view is again reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1967] 63 ITR 207. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the assessee was entitled to the rebate in respect of the new machinery used for the construction of the buildings in question. Question No. 1 has, therefore, to be answered in the affirmative. In view of the above, the answer to the secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
