1983 (8) TMI 16 - HC - Income Tax

Court distinguishes 'actual cost' & 'actual cost of assets to assessee' for depreciation calculation under Income-tax Act

The court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, determining that 'actual cost' and 'actual cost of the assets to assessee' have distinct ... Actual Cost, Depreciation, Developement Rebate Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of 'actual cost' and 'actual cost of the assets to assessee' under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Allowance of depreciation and development rebate on service connections reduced by consumer contributions.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of 'actual cost' and 'actual cost of the assets to assessee' under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961The primary question raised was whether the expressions 'actual cost' and 'actual cost of the assets to assessee' bear the same meaning under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court examined the historical context, including the provisions of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and the changes introduced by the I.T. Act, 1961. Under the 1922 Act, 'actual cost' meant the cost to the assessee without considering contributions from other entities. However, the 1961 Act introduced a definition in Section 43(1) that required the 'actual cost' to be reduced by any portion of the cost met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority.The court rejected the assessee's argument that 'actual cost' should not be reduced by consumer contributions, emphasizing that the new definition under the 1961 Act was intended to remove anomalies present in the previous legislation. The court held that the expressions 'actual cost' and 'actual cost of the assets to assessee' do not bear the same meaning under the 1961 Act, and 'actual cost' must be reduced by contributions from consumers or other entities.Issue 2: Allowance of depreciation and development rebate on service connections reduced by consumer contributionsThe second issue was whether depreciation and development rebate should be allowed on the gross cost of service connections or the cost reduced by consumer contributions. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had allowed depreciation and development rebate after deducting consumer contributions from the total cost. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Tribunal upheld this view, stating that contributions by consumers had to be deducted to determine the 'actual cost' for depreciation and development rebate purposes.The court reviewed relevant provisions, including Sections 32(1), 33(1), and 43(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and concluded that the 'actual cost' must be reduced by consumer contributions. The court cited several decisions from various High Courts that consistently supported this interpretation under the 1961 Act. The court held that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation and development rebate on the gross cost of new service connections and that the Tribunal's view was correct.Conclusion:The court answered both questions in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. It held that the expressions 'actual cost' and 'actual cost of the assets to assessee' do not bear the same meaning under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that depreciation and development rebate must be calculated on the cost of service connections reduced by consumer contributions. The Revenue authority was awarded a consolidated hearing fee of Rs. 250.