1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court grants relief under section 84 for Raipur plant, emphasizing legislative intent.</h1> The High Court held that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 84 for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, and 1966-67 in respect of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to relief under section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, and 1966-67 in respect of the Raipur plant.2. Deduction as revenue expenditure of the payment of Rs. 6,000 made to the Central Electronic Research Institute for the assessment year 1966-67.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Relief under Section 84 for Assessment Years 1964-65, 1965-66, and 1966-67:Facts:- The assessee-company manufactures electrodes and welding equipment and had a manufacturing unit at Bhandup. A new plant was set up at Bilaspur, Raipur, which began production on 24-7-1962.- The total cost of the Raipur plant was Rs. 10,50,997, with Rs. 2,51,556 worth of plant and machinery transferred from the Bhandup factory.- Additional buildings and machinery were added in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1964-65, bringing the total value to Rs. 12,58,672.- The assessee claimed relief under section 84 for the assessment year 1964-65, which was initially omitted by the ITO and later rejected under section 154.Contentions:- The assessee argued that the relief should be considered for the assessment year 1964-65 as the construction was completed in that year.- The revenue contended that the relief under section 84 should be considered with reference to the year the unit began to manufacture, i.e., the assessment year 1963-64, and the four succeeding years.Tribunal's Decision:- The Tribunal concluded that the relief under section 84 could not be available for the assessment year 1964-65 and the succeeding years as the unit began production in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1963-64, where the value of old assets exceeded 20% of the total investment.High Court's Analysis:- The High Court noted that the legislative intent behind section 84 was to provide a tax incentive to newly established industrial undertakings.- The Court emphasized that the provisions should be construed liberally to encourage new industrial undertakings.- The Court examined whether the Raipur unit complied with the condition in section 84(2)(ii), considering the Explanation and sub-section (7).- It was held that the condition prescribed in section 84(2)(ii) should be considered for each of the five relevant assessment years, not just the year of commencement.- The Court found that in the assessment years 1964-65 to 1966-67, the value of previously used plant and machinery did not exceed 20% of the total value, thus complying with the Explanation.Conclusion:- The High Court concluded that the assessee was entitled to the relief under section 84 for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, and 1966-67 in respect of the Raipur plant.- Question No. 1 was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.2. Deduction as Revenue Expenditure of Rs. 6,000 for Assessment Year 1966-67:Facts:- The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 6,000 paid to the Central Electronic Research Institute for acquiring the technical process of flash gun as revenue expenditure.Tribunal's Decision:- The claim was rejected by the income-tax authorities and the Tribunal, which held that the payment was in the nature of capital expenditure.High Court's Analysis:- The High Court noted that the assessee did not wish to pursue this question.Conclusion:- The High Court declined to answer Question No. 2 as the assessee did not desire it to be answered.Costs:- The High Court ordered that there would be no order as to costs, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case.