1996 (7) TMI 47 - HC - Income Tax

High Court affirms depreciation & investment allowance for drilling equipment

The High Court upheld the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to allow 30% depreciation on rig and air compressor used in drilling of tubewells, ... Industrial Undertaking, Investment Allowance, Rate Of Depreciation Issues:1. Depreciation allowance on rig and air compressor used in drilling of tubewells.2. Eligibility of the assessee for investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act.Detailed Analysis:1. The High Court was presented with the issue of whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing 30% depreciation on rig and air compressor used in drilling of tubewells. The Commissioner of Income-tax contended that only 15% depreciation should have been allowed. The Tribunal, however, relied on the judgment in CIT v. Super Drillers [1988] 174 ITR 640 and held that the equipment fell within the description of 'earth moving machinery employed in heavy construction work.' The Tribunal also considered drilling of tubewells as resulting in the production of underground water, deeming it an industrial undertaking. The High Court, after reviewing the arguments, concluded that the questions raised were already answered in previous cases, notably in CIT v. Kamdhenu Agencies [1997] 223 ITR 376, and upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee.2. The second issue revolved around the eligibility of the assessee for investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal had determined that the assessee, engaged in drilling borewells, qualified as an industrial undertaking involved in manufacturing or producing articles. Citing the precedent set in CIT v. Super Drillers [1988] 174 ITR 640, the High Court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation that drilling operations resulting in the production of underground water constituted an industrial undertaking. Consequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on this issue as well, aligning with the decisions made in the aforementioned cases. The judgment favored the assessee on both issues, affirming their entitlement to the depreciation allowance and investment allowance under the Income-tax Act.