Case Details

Citation(s)
1988 SLG 1575 1988 SLD 1575 (1988) 170 ITR 431
Calcutta High Court

DIPAK KUMAR SEN, ACTG. C.J. AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of Income Tax

v.

Hindusthan Motors Ltd.

Law:

Section:

Section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Plant - Whether tube-well set up for carrying on business is plant - Held, yes Facts The ITO disallowed the assessee's claim of development rebate in respect of the tube-well. However, on appeal, the AAC allowed the assessee's claim. On appeal, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the assessee that a tube-well was an apparatus with equipment necessary for drawing water from sub-terranean sources. The Tribunal found that such water was necessary not only for production but also for industrial labour and held that the tube-wells were required by the assessee in its capacity as an employer as also in its capacity as a businessman. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the AAC. On reference: Held In the instant case, the findings of fact of the Tribunal were not challenged by the revenue. Therefore, the Court was precluded from enquiring further into the question whether the said tube-well was in fact utilised in the business of the assessee. The only point which can be considered is whether the cost of the tube-wells set up by the assessee in the assessment year involved came within the definition of the word 'plan'. The definition of the expression 'plant' in section 43(3) of the 1961 Act is a wide definition as in section 10(5) of the 1922 Act. It cannot be contended that a tube-well set up by an assessee for the purposes of his business and utilised as such, will not be a plant within the meaning of section 43(3), and entitled to development rebate. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified. Cases Referred To CIT v. Hindusthan Motors Ltd. [1981] 127 ITR 210 (Cal.), CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44 (SC), CIT v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 15 (AP), CIT v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 68 (AP) and CIT v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. [1986] 160 ITR 217 (AP). S.K. Bhattacharyya for the Applicant. R.N. Bajoria for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Dipak Kumar Sen, Actg. CJ.-This reference arises out of the income-tax assessment of Hindusthan Motors Ltd., the assessee, in the assessment year 1971-72. On an application of the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the following questions…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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