TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Court affirms investment, depreciation allowances for new machinery, stresses timely installation.</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Surama Tubes Pvt. Limited</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Surama Tubes Pvt. Limited - [1993] 201 ITR 124 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.
TaxTMI 