1981 (4) TMI 93 - HC - Income Tax

High Court affirms Tribunal's decision on depreciation allowance for company's water supply installations

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the company. It found that the term 'Hydraulic works, pipelines and sluices' referred to ... Depreciation Issues:Interpretation of 'Hydraulic works, pipelines and sluices' for extra shift depreciation allowance on sanitary and water supply installations inside the factory.Analysis:The case involved a public limited company deriving income from manufacturing steel castings, grinding media, steel ingot castings, and G.I. pipes. The company claimed extra shift depreciation allowance on sanitary and water supply installations inside its factory for the assessment year 1974-75. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the claim, stating that the machinery fell under the category of 'Hydraulic works, pipelines and sluices,' which did not qualify for extra shift allowance.The company appealed to the Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) and then to the Tribunal, arguing that the special rate for hydraulic works did not apply to installations inside factories but to those in hydraulic works specifically. The revenue contended that since the Rules had statutory force, the benefit could not be extended to the company. The Tribunal analyzed the issue, considering the context of the term 'Hydraulic works, pipelines and sluices' under the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and the previous Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922.The Tribunal found that the term referred to machineries used by hydroelectric undertakings, specifically related to electric supply undertakings. It concluded that the tube-wells and pipelines inside the company's factory did not fall under the category of 'Hydraulic works, pipelines and sluices' as intended by the Rules. Therefore, the extra shift allowance was deemed admissible for the company's installations. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings, stating that the company's claim was valid and not restricted by the Appendix entry, thus ruling in favor of the company.The judgment highlighted that the company's factory did not align with the definition of 'Hydraulic works, pipelines and sluices,' emphasizing that the term referred to specific types of works not applicable to the company's operations. The Court supported the Tribunal's decision, affirming the company's entitlement to the extra shift depreciation allowance for the sanitary and water supply installations inside its factory. The judgment concluded by awarding costs to the company and agreeing with the Tribunal's decision.