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>High Court clarifies machinery deduction for washing soap production, orders sequence of deductions.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. - [2009] 311 ITR 345 (P&H) Issues:1. Allowance of investment deduction on machinery for soap manufacture.2. Sequence of deduction under sections 80HH, 32A, and 32AB.Issue 1: Allowance of Investment Deduction on Machinery for Soap ManufactureThe case involved the interpretation of the Eleventh Schedule of the Income-tax Act, specifically regarding the allowance of investment deduction on machinery used for soap manufacture. The Tribunal initially disallowed the deduction citing soap as a prohibited item under entry No. 4 of the Schedule. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) overturned this decision, stating that the prohibition applied to soap for personal use, not washing soap. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that items like washing soap fell under different categories in the Schedule. The High Court concurred, applying the principle of noscitur a sociis to interpret the entries. It ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the investment deduction for machinery used in washing soap production.Issue 2: Sequence of Deduction under Sections 80HH, 32A, and 32ABThe second issue revolved around the order in which deductions under sections 80HH and 32A/32AB should be allowed. The Assessing Officer initially rejected the assessee's claim to compute the deduction under section 80HH before that under section 32A/32AB. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) supported the assessee's stance, citing precedents from the Orissa and Karnataka High Courts. The Tribunal also sided with the assessee, considering the more favorable interpretation for the taxpayer. Nevertheless, the High Court disagreed, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling on the net income basis for deductions under section 80HH. It held that the deduction under section 32A/32AB should precede that under section 80HH, in line with the explicit provisions of the Income-tax Act.In conclusion, the High Court resolved both issues by allowing the investment deduction for machinery used in washing soap production and determining the sequence of deductions under sections 80HH and 32A/32AB. The judgment clarified the interpretation of the Eleventh Schedule and emphasized adherence to the explicit provisions of the Income-tax Act in determining the order of deductions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
