Investment allowance eligibility based on installation year, not utilization. Court clarifies

The case involved a firm claiming investment allowance on machinery additions for the assessment year 1983-84. The High Court clarified that investment allowance eligibility is based on the year of installation, not utilization, and ruled in favor of the applicant. The court also confirmed a 10% depreciation rate on the electric generator, as it was not specifically listed in applicable rates. The decision favored the assessee for investment allowance entitlement and the Revenue for the depreciation rate, resulting in no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Entitlement to investment allowance under section 32A
2. Rate of depreciation on electric generator

Analysis:

Entitlement to investment allowance under section 32A:
The case involved a firm running a sugarcane crusher claiming investment allowance on machinery additions for the assessment year 1983-84. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim due to machinery not being fully utilized during the year. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim and directed verification for investment allowance and increased the depreciation rate on the generator from 10% to 30%. The Tribunal, however, ruled in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing that investment allowance is only applicable when machinery is wholly used for business purposes. The High Court, in agreement with the Calcutta High Court's interpretation, clarified that the year of installation, not utilization, is crucial for investment allowance eligibility. Therefore, the applicant was deemed entitled to the investment allowance for machinery installed in the relevant previous year.

Rate of depreciation on electric generator:
Regarding the depreciation rate on the generator, the High Court noted that the generator was not specifically listed in the applicable depreciation rates, thus allowing a general rate of 10%. Citing previous decisions, the court affirmed that the depreciation on a generator is admissible at 10%. Consequently, the court answered the first question in favor of the assessee, affirming entitlement to investment allowance, and the second question in favor of the Revenue, confirming the 10% depreciation rate on the generator. As a result of the split decision, no costs were awarded.

---