| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1979 SLG 1093 1979 SLD 1093 (1979) 118 ITR 809 |
Bombay High Court
INCOME-TAX REFERENCE No. 115 OF 1969, JULY 27, 1978
R.M. KANTAWALA, C.J. AND S.K. DESAI, J
R.J. Joshi, V.J. Pandit and Miss S.G. Shah for the Appellant. S.C. Dastur, Craigie, Blunt and Caroe for the
Respondent
INCOME-TAX REFERENCE No. 115 OF 1969, JULY 27, 1978
R.M. KANTAWALA, C.J. AND S.K. DESAI, J
R.J. Joshi, V.J. Pandit and Miss S.G. Shah for the Appellant. S.C. Dastur, Craigie, Blunt and Caroe for the
Respondent
Commissioner of IncomE tax
v.
Bank of India Ltd
Law:
Section:
Section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Development rebate - Assessment year 1962-63 to 1964-65 - Whether safe deposit locker installed by bank fall under term 'plant' and, therefore, entitled to development rebate - Held, yes - Whether where there was no finding by nor a claim before any of taxing authorities that electric installations in respect of which claim for development rebate was made were special electrical installations absolutely necessary for purpose of carrying on banking business of assessee, they could not be regarded as plant entitled for development rebate - Held, yes FACTS The assessee bank claimed development rebate on the safe deposit locker cabinets and Electrical installations. The ITO observed that safe deposit lockers were at best a special type of cupboard and could not be considered as plant for purposes of development rebate or depreciation. As far as electrical installations were concerned, he observed that they were in the nature of fitting and so disallowed the development rebate as claimed. On second appeal, the Tribunal observed that the word 'plant' had been defined very widely under the Act so as to include even books and scientific apparatus used for the purpose of business which need not necessarily be manufacturing business. Accordingly, the claim for development rebate on the safe deposit lockers was allowed. On the further claim of the assessee that electrical installations were also plant and machinery, the Tribunal dismissed these contentions of the assessee by observing simpliciter that they constituted ordinary fixtures and could not qualify for development rebate. On cross references : HELD Following the decisions in the cases of CIT v. Union Bank of India Ltd. [1976]] 102 ITR (Bom.) and CIT v. Central Bank of India Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 196 (Bom.), it was to be held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the safe deposit locker cabinets fell under the term 'plant', and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to development rebate thereon for the assessment years in questions. As regards electrical installations, there was no finding by nor a claim before any of the taxing authorities that the electric…
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