1984 (4) TMI 11 - HC - Income Tax

Court Decision: Entitlement to Shift Allowance Limited, Deductions Allowed, Medical Expenses Reconsidered

The court ruled in favor of the Revenue regarding the entitlement to extra shift allowance for machineries added during previous years, limiting the ... Business Expenditure, Depreciation, Extra Shift Depreciation Allowance, New Industrial Undertaking Issues:1. Extra shift allowance for machineries added during previous years.2. Deduction for additional amount paid due to fluctuations in exchange rates.3. Reimbursement of medical expenses as 'perquisites' for disallowance.4. Exclusion of machinery not put to use from 'capital base' for relief calculation.5. Allowance of provision for gratuity as deduction.Analysis:1. Extra Shift Allowance for Machineries:The court addressed whether the assessee is entitled to extra shift allowance for machineries added during previous years based on double and triple shifts worked by the concern. The court referred to previous decisions and held that the allowance should be restricted to individual machineries used during extra shifts, not all machineries owned by the concern. The decision was based on consistent interpretations by various High Courts and the Supreme Court. Therefore, the court answered this question in the negative and in favor of the Revenue.2. Deduction for Fluctuations in Exchange Rates:The court determined if the assessee can claim deduction for the additional amount paid due to fluctuations in exchange rates for machineries purchased from abroad. The court relied on a previous decision in favor of the assessee and answered this question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.3. Reimbursement of Medical Expenses as 'Perquisites':Regarding the reimbursement of medical expenses as 'perquisites' for disallowance, the court found errors in the Tribunal's application of relevant sections of the Income-tax Act. The court highlighted the need for a detailed consideration of the issue in light of applicable statutory provisions for the respective assessment years. As the Tribunal did not analyze the matter comprehensively, the court returned the reference unanswered and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the issue in accordance with the law.4. Exclusion of Machinery from 'Capital Base':The court examined whether the value of machinery not put to use should be excluded from the 'capital base' for relief calculation under the Income-tax Act. Citing a previous decision in favor of the assessee, the court answered this question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.5. Allowance of Provision for Gratuity:The court considered whether the provision for gratuity should be allowed as a deduction for a specific assessment year. Referring to relevant decisions, the court answered this question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.Additionally, the court granted oral leave to both the assessee and the Revenue for appealing to the Supreme Court against the decisions on question No. 1 and question No. 4, respectively, based on the specific circumstances and previous court rulings.