Assessee prevails in tax case on investment allowance, employee tours, depreciation, and shift allowance.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee in a case involving the claim of investment allowance on leased plant and machinery, recomputation of disallowance for employee tours, allowance of additional depreciation on leased assets, and extra shift allowance. The decisions were based on established legal principles and precedents, leading to a resolution in favor of the Assessee against the Revenue in all issues.

---

---

Issues:
1. Claim of investment allowance u/s.32A on leased plant and machinery
2. Recomputation of disallowance under Rule 6D of the I.T. Rules for employee tours
3. Allowance of additional depreciation on leased assets
4. Allowance of extra shift allowance on leased assets

Analysis:

Issue 1: Claim of investment allowance u/s.32A on leased plant and machinery
The Assessing Officer denied investment allowance to the Assessee, arguing that the leased assets were not actually used by the Assessee. However, previous judgments established that when a leasing company leases machinery to third parties for manufacturing purposes, the company is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A. The Tribunal upheld the Assessee's claim based on these precedents, leading to the question being answered in favor of the Assessee against the Revenue.

Issue 2: Recomputation of disallowance under Rule 6D of the I.T. Rules for employee tours
The Assessing Officer had initially disallowed the claim under Rule 6D based on individual tours, but the CIT(A) directed the AO to recompute the disallowance by considering all tours made by employees collectively. The Tribunal upheld this decision, and previous judgments supported this approach. Consequently, the question was answered in favor of the Assessee against the Revenue.

Issue 3: Allowance of additional depreciation on leased assets
The Assessing Officer had denied additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) on the grounds that the plant and machinery were not installed by the Assessee. However, the Tribunal, following previous decisions, allowed the claim based on the interpretation that there is no requirement for the Assessee to install and use the assets for claiming additional depreciation. The question was answered in favor of the Assessee against the Revenue.

Issue 4: Allowance of extra shift allowance on leased assets
The Assessing Officer rejected the claim for extra shift allowance, arguing that the Assessee did not work in extra shifts. However, the Supreme Court precedent established that even if the lessee, not the Assessee, used the machinery in double shifts, the Assessee is entitled to extra shift allowance. As the lessees had worked in extra shifts, the claim was upheld, and the question was answered in favor of the Assessee against the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decisions in favor of the Assessee were based on established legal principles and precedents, leading to the resolution of all issues in favor of the Assessee.

---