TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Dispute on Shift Allowance for Generators in Tax Assessment</h1> The case involved a dispute over the allowance of extra shift allowance on generators and electrical machinery for the assessment year 1975-76. The High ... Developement Rebate, Extra Shift Depreciation Allowance Issues:1. Interpretation of Income-tax Rules regarding extra shift allowance on generators and electrical machinery.2. Eligibility for development rebate on ancillary equipment for generator installation.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute over the allowance of extra shift allowance on generators and electrical machinery for the assessment year 1975-76. The Income-tax Officer denied the claim citing the relevant Income-tax Rules, specifically item III(iv)(1) of Appendix I, which mentioned stationary plant not eligible for extra shift allowance. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, but the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the prohibition applied only to stationary plants and not to rotary machines like generators. The High Court analyzed the meaning of 'other stationary plant' under the category of 'Electrical Machinery' using the ejusdem generis rule, which restricts general words to objects of the same class as the specific words preceding them. The Court concluded that generators, being rotary machines, were not stationary plants like switchgears and transformers, and thus, were entitled to extra shift allowance. The first question was answered in favor of the assessee.2. The second issue pertained to the eligibility for development rebate on ancillary equipment necessary for generator installation. The Finance Act, 1974, stipulated that development rebate would not apply if the machinery or plant was installed after May 31, 1974, unless purchased or ordered before December 1, 1973. As the ancillary equipment in question was neither purchased nor ordered before the specified date, the assessee was deemed ineligible for development rebate on these items. Consequently, the second question was answered in favor of the Revenue. Both judges concurred with the decisions rendered on each issue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
