Court affirms investment, depreciation allowances for new machinery, stresses timely installation.

The court affirmed the full allowance of investment and additional depreciation for a private limited company that installed new plant and machinery, emphasizing the completion of installation during the relevant year as crucial for claiming allowances. The High Court upheld the decision, highlighting that the machinery's newness and installation status during the assessment year were pivotal for entitlement to allowances under relevant sections 32(1)(iia) and 32A. Additionally, the court allowed the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation based on a previous judgment in favor of the assessee, answering both issues in favor of the company.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "new plant and machinery" for claiming investment allowance and additional depreciation.
2. Allowance of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance u/s 79 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Interpretation of "New Plant and Machinery":
The case involved a private limited company that installed new plant and machinery for production, claiming investment allowances and additional depreciation. The Income-tax Officer allowed investment allowance on machinery purchased in the relevant year only, denying additional depreciation on machinery acquired before April 1, 1981. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed full allowance of investment and additional depreciation. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the newness of the machinery and completion of installation during the relevant year. The High Court affirmed this, stating that installation, not acquisition, is crucial for claiming allowances, citing relevant sections 32(1)(iia) and 32A. The court highlighted that the machinery being new and under installation during the assessment year was pivotal, as confirmed by the Tribunal's findings.

Carry Forward of Unabsorbed Depreciation and Investment Allowance:
Regarding the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation, the Income-tax Officer initially disallowed it, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed its allowance. The Tribunal upheld this decision, and the High Court concurred, citing a previous judgment in favor of the assessee. The court answered both questions in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the completion of installation and entitlement to allowances based on the machinery's status during the relevant assessment year.

---