1982 (2) TMI 2 - HC - Income Tax

Court denies development rebate for machinery; allows commission deduction as business expense

The court held that the assessee was not entitled to a 25% development rebate on machinery installed in B mills as staple fibre yarn did not fall within ... Developement Rebate Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to development rebate at 25% on new machinery.2. Deduction of commission paid for the sale of old machinery as business expenditure.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Entitlement to Development Rebate at 25% on New MachineryThe primary question was whether the assessee was entitled to a development rebate at 25% on Rs. 2,61,540 for machinery installed in B mills during the relevant previous year. The Tribunal found that the assessee manufactures only staple fibre yarn in B mills, which does not use cotton. The court had to decide if staple fibre yarn fell within item 32 of the Fifth Schedule to the Income Tax Act, which covers 'Textiles (including those dyed, printed or otherwise processed) made wholly or mainly of cotton, including cotton yarn, hosiery and rope.'The court analyzed item 32 and concluded that the term 'textiles made wholly or mainly of cotton' includes only those textiles where the principal content is cotton. Therefore, staple fibre yarn, which is not made wholly or mainly of cotton, does not fall within this definition. The court rejected the argument that 'cotton yarn' should be given an extended meaning to include staple fibre yarn. The court referred to various precedents but found that they did not support the assessee's contention. Consequently, the court held that the assessee was entitled to a development rebate only at the rate of 15%, not 25%.Issue 2: Deduction of Commission Paid for the Sale of Old Machinery as Business ExpenditureThe second question was whether Rs. 16,526 paid by the assessee as commission for the sale of old machinery could be allowed as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal had allowed this deduction, stating that it was business expenditure incurred by the assessee.The Revenue contended that this amount represented capital expenditure and not business expenditure. However, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the expenditure was incurred in the course of modernizing the mills, which involved selling outdated machinery to make room for new machinery. The court agreed with the Tribunal's observation that the expenditure did not bring into existence any new capital asset of enduring benefit. Therefore, the commission paid was deductible as business expenditure.Separate Judgments:Main Judgment:The court answered the first question in the negative and against the assessee, holding that the assessee was not entitled to a 25% development rebate on the machinery installed in B mills. The second question was answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue, allowing the deduction of the commission paid as business expenditure.Concurring Judgment:A concurring note emphasized that the Fifth Schedule should be interpreted as a mere list of specified articles and things, without attributing any special grouping or classification. The concurring judge stressed that the expressions used in the Schedule, such as 'including,' should not be interpreted to expand the ordinary connotation of the terms listed. The judge also noted that the Schedule's composition does not claim exhaustive coverage of any category of articles or things.Certification for Appeal:The court certified the case as fit for appeal to the Supreme Court regarding the first question of law, given the importance of the subject matter and the statutory construction involved.