9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer, however, noticed that the assessee had earned an income of Rs. 79,283 by doing the labour jobs of loading and unloading of material in the stock-yard of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. by utilising the aforesaid crane. He, therefore, observed that the crane had not been used wholly for the manufacturing business of the assessee as it had been mostly used for earning income by doing loading and unloading of materials of outside parties. Without prejudice to this, the Assessing Officer, however, held that the crane had the character of a transport vehicle on which no investment allowance was admissible. He accordingly rejected the claim of investment allowance preferr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h decision of the Tribunal in ITO vs. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. (1985) 23 TTJ (Mad) 469 (SB) : (1985) 13 ITD 234 (Mad)(SB), it was submitted that even in the case of a leasing company, investment allowance was held to be admissible whereas in the present case, the assessee was only utilising the machinery when it was lying idle with the purpose to make optimum use of the machinery and to earn maximum profit therefrom. It was also submitted that the expression, "for the purposes of business" was wider than the expression "for the purposes of business of manufacture or production of any article of thing". It was, therefore, submitted that the assessee's case was squarely covered by the provisions of law and hence investment allowance wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions as also the facts on record. The assessee has earned an income of Rs. 79,283 by the hiring of the crane in question and that income has been treated as business income by the Assessing Officer. A careful reading of s. 32A(1) shows that investment allowance is admissible if certain conditions are fulfilled. One condition is that the machinery must be acquired after a particular date. The machinery in question admittedly was acquired after 31st March, 1976. The other condition is that the machinery must be owned by the assessee. There is no doubt that the machinery in the present case is owned by the assessee-firm. The third condition is that it must be wholly used for purposes of business carried on by the assessee. The assessee has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has been treated as business income of the assessee. In our opinion, the absence of the expression "exclusively in s. 32A(2) clinches the issue in favour of the assessee. 8. The learned Departmental Representative has relied on the Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Machinery Manufacturing Corporation Ltd. In that case the assessee had claimed investment allowance on fire extinguishers or time-office equipment. The High Court held that every item of machinery and plant did not qualify for investment allowance even though it may be used in the business. Since the fire extinguishers and time office equipment were not items inextricably connected with the production of any article or thing, the High Court held that investment allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
