Court rules conveyance deed not needed for depreciation claim. Interest on deposits is business income.

The court held that the registration of the conveyance deed transferring buildings, plant, and machinery by the Government to the assessee was not required for claiming depreciation. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the Transfer of Property Act does not apply to Government grants, and the assessee was entitled to the depreciation allowances claimed. Additionally, the court determined that the interest earned on short-term deposits should be treated as business income of the assessee, as it was deemed incidental to the business activities. Both issues were decided in favor of the assessee against the Revenue.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the registration of the conveyance deed transferring certain buildings, plant, and machinery by the Government to the assessee is required for claiming depreciation.
2. Whether the interest on short-term deposits should be treated as business income of the assessee.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Registration of Conveyance Deed and Depreciation Claim
The primary question was whether the registration of the conveyance deed transferring buildings, plant, and machinery by the Government to the assessee is required for the assessee to claim depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Facts and Arguments:
- The Tamil Nadu Government transferred certain units of the Dairy Development Department to the assessee-company through a Government Order dated June 29, 1972. This transfer included land and buildings valued at Rs. 34,26,510.
- The assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 1,61,775 on these assets.
- The Income-tax Officer denied the depreciation claim, citing the lack of registration of the transfer as required under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
- The assessee argued that the Government Grants Act, 1895, which excludes the operation of the Transfer of Property Act to Government grants, should apply.

Judgment:
- The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Express Newspapers (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, which clarified that sections 2 and 3 of the Government Grants Act exclude the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, from applying to Government grants.
- Section 2 of the Government Grants Act explicitly states that the Transfer of Property Act does not apply to any grant or transfer of land or any interest therein made by or on behalf of the Government.
- Section 3 ensures that all provisions, restrictions, conditions, and limitations in such grants or transfers are valid and take effect according to their tenor, overriding any contrary rule of law or statute.

Conclusion:
- The court held that the Tribunal was correct in concluding that the assessee-company was the owner of the assets and entitled to the depreciation allowances claimed. The first question was answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.

Issue 2: Interest on Short-Term Deposits as Business Income
The second issue was whether the interest earned on short-term deposits should be treated as business income of the assessee.

Facts and Arguments:
- The Income-tax Officer treated the interest earned on short-term deposits as income from "other sources," not as business income.
- The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reversed this, stating that the interest should be treated as business income since the deposits were made to keep funds available for business purposes.
- The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's view, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

Judgment:
- The court considered various precedents:
- Collis Line Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO: Interest earned on deposits was incidental to the main purpose of safe-keeping, not business.
- Bokaro Steel Ltd. v. CIT: Interest on short-term deposits was not incidental to business and was assessable under "other sources."
- CIT v. Nagarjuna Steels Ltd.: Interest earned on surplus funds kept in short-term deposits was not assessable as revenue receipt.
- Contrarily, the assessee cited cases where interest on deposits was considered business income:
- CIT v. A. P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.: Income from letting out sheds and interest from banks was business income.
- Snam Proghetti S. P. A. v. Addl. CIT: Interest income earned by depositing spare funds was business income.
- Addl. CIT v. Madras Fertilisers Ltd.: Interest on special account deposits constituted business income.
- CIT v. Calcutta National Bank Ltd.: The term "business" has a wide scope and includes activities incidental to the business.

Conclusion:
- The court agreed with the assessee's view, emphasizing the broad scope of "business" and the incidental nature of the interest income to the business activities.
- The interest on short-term deposits, made from business funds before their utilization, was deemed incidental to the business activity and thus treated as business income.
- The second question was answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.

Final Order:
- Both questions were answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. There was no order as to costs.

---