Foreign shipping depreciation rules upheld: ship-wise unabsorbed depreciation could be carried forward only under the binding instructions.

For foreign shipping companies using separate Indian accounts, Central Board instructions under rule 33 were treated as a valid clarification of the residual computation power and not as inconsistent with section 10(2)(vi) or proviso (c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The instructions were held to be binding because they addressed a special situation not expressly covered by the Act or Rules, including ship-wise depreciation and allocation of unabsorbed depreciation. Unabsorbed depreciation attached to a ship could be carried forward only against that same ship and only if it was employed in the Indian trade in the later year, so the set-off claimed for ships not so employed was disallowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Central Board's instructions governing depreciation for foreign shipping companies under rule 33 were inconsistent with section 10(2)(vi) and proviso (c) to that section of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. (ii) Whether unabsorbed depreciation attributable to ships not employed in the Indian trade during the relevant year could be carried forward and set off against the profits of the assessment year 1958-59.

Issue (i): Whether the Central Board's instructions governing depreciation for foreign shipping companies under rule 33 were inconsistent with section 10(2)(vi) and proviso (c) to that section of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: Section 5(8) empowered the Central Board to issue binding instructions for the administration of the Act. Rule 33 contained a residual power to compute the income of a non-resident in another suitable manner where the ordinary modes were inadequate. The instructions in question were framed to meet a special situation not expressly dealt with by the Act or the Rules, namely foreign shipping companies keeping separate Indian accounts. They prescribed how depreciation was to be worked out ship-wise, how unabsorbed depreciation was to be allocated, and when the allowance would cease. The instructions were held to be an elucidation of rule 33 and not repugnant to the statutory provisions.

Conclusion: The instructions were valid and binding, and the answer on this issue was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether unabsorbed depreciation attributable to ships not employed in the Indian trade during the relevant year could be carried forward and set off against the profits of the assessment year 1958-59.

Analysis: The instructions provided that unabsorbed depreciation attached to a particular ship could be allowed in a subsequent year only against that same ship, and only if it was employed in the Indian trade in that subsequent year. Since the seven ships in respect of which the set-off was claimed did not come to India in the relevant accounting year, the claimed set-off was not permissible.

Conclusion: The set-off was rightly disallowed, and the answer on this issue was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was held to be without merit, and the statutory instructions governing depreciation and carry-forward of unabsorbed depreciation for foreign shipping companies were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Instructions issued by the Central Board under the residual computation power in rule 33 are binding if they operate within the Act and Rules, and unabsorbed depreciation tied to a specific ship can be carried forward only in accordance with the conditions imposed by those valid instructions.

---