TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows investment allowance for air compressor used in sand blasting</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus N. Venkataraman</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus N. Venkataraman - [2000] 245 ITR 73, 160 CTR 192, 123 TAXMANN 1035 Issues Involved:1. Entitlement of investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the air compressor used for sand blasting.2. Interpretation of 'manufacture or production of articles or things' under section 32A.3. Applicability of precedents and judicial interpretations relevant to section 32A.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement of Investment Allowance:The primary issue was whether the assessee is entitled to claim investment allowance for the air compressor used for sand blasting under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer initially rejected the claim, stating that the air compressor was used only for the treatment of metal and not for manufacturing or producing any article or thing. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal both found that sand blasting is an essential part of the manufacturing process, thus qualifying the air compressor for investment allowance. The Tribunal concluded that the products obtained after sand blasting were commercially more valuable, satisfying the conditions of section 32A.2. Interpretation of 'Manufacture or Production of Articles or Things':The court considered whether the process of sand blasting constitutes 'manufacture or production of articles or things.' The Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 308 was pivotal, establishing that machinery used in any part of the manufacturing process, including intermediary stages, qualifies for investment allowance. The court emphasized that the ultimate product need not belong to the assessee; what matters is that the machinery is used in the manufacturing or production process. This interpretation aligns with the objective of section 32A to promote industrialization by facilitating investment in priority industries.3. Applicability of Precedents and Judicial Interpretations:The court examined several precedents, including CIT v. Perfect Liners [1983] 142 ITR 654 (Mad), which supported a broad interpretation of 'manufacture.' The court also referenced the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT v. Mahant Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. [1992] 193 ITR 620, advocating a liberal construction of section 32A to effectuate its purpose. The court distinguished the present case from CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412, noting that the issue here was not about the ultimate product but the eligibility of machinery used in intermediary processes.The court concluded that all conditions of section 32A were met: the air compressor was owned by the assessee, used wholly for business purposes, and did not fall under the negative list of section 32A. Thus, the assessee was entitled to claim the investment allowance. The court answered the question of law in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, awarding costs of Rs. 1,000 to the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
