| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1976 SLG 258 1976 SLD 258 (1976) 102 ITR 270 |
Bombay High Court
IT REFERENCE No. 25 OF 1971, JUNE 25, 1975
KANTAWALA, C.J. AND TULZAPURKAR, J.
R.J. Joshi and V.J. Pandit for the Applicant. S.E. Dastur for the
Respondent
IT REFERENCE No. 25 OF 1971, JUNE 25, 1975
KANTAWALA, C.J. AND TULZAPURKAR, J.
R.J. Joshi and V.J. Pandit for the Applicant. S.E. Dastur for the
Respondent
Commissioner of IncomE tax
v.
Union Bank of India Ltd.
Law:
Section:
Section 33, read with section 43(3), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Development rebate - Assessment years 1962-63 to 1965-66 - Whether safe-deposit vault in a bank constitutes 'plant' within meaning of section 33(1) so as to be eligible for grant of development rebate - Held, yes FACTS The revenue filed instant reference application for determination of the question as to whether safe deposit vaults constituted "plant" within the meaning of section 33(1) so as to be eligible for the grant of development rebate. HELD From the dictionary meaning point of view, a safe deposit vault in a bank is in any event a fixture within the meaning of the word "plant". Thus, safe deposit vault is clearly "plant" and will be entitled to the development rebate as provided in section 33. Note: The case was decided in favour of the assessee. EDITORS NOTE In view of the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. New Great Insurance Co. Ltd., Indian Guarantee and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd.[1973] 90 ITR 348 (Bom.), the assessee was entitled to relief's and rebates on the gross dividend income and in respect of interest on tax-free securities without deducting any amount by way of proportionate management expenses. CASE REVIEW Yarmouth v. France [1887] 19 QBD 647 (CA) followed and relied upon. Jayasingrao Pirjai Rao Ghatge v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 1160 (Bom)dissented. CASES REFERRED TO Yarmouth v. France [1887] 19 QBD 647 (CA), Jayasingrao Pirjai Rao Ghatge v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 1160 (Bom.), CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. [1974] 96 ITR 672 (Guj.), CIT v. New Great Insurance Co. Ltd. [1973] 90 ITR 348 (Bom.), Hinton v. Maden and Ireland Ltd. [1960] 39 ITR 357 (HL) and J. Lyons & Co. Ltd. v. Attorney-General [1944] Ch. 261 (Ch. D.). JUDGMENT Kantawala, CJ.-At the instance of the revenue the following three questions, which pertain to several years, are referred for determination by the High Court. Question No. 1 referred pertaining to all the years, viz., 1962-63 to 1966-67, is as under: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to reliefs and rebates on the gross dividend income…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492