Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Capital employed for tax relief includes machinery not yet installed or workshops under construction.

        Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Alcock Ashdown And Company Limited

        Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Alcock Ashdown And Company Limited - [1997] 224 ITR 353 (SC) Issues Involved:
        1. Interpretation of 'capital employed in the undertaking' under sections 84(1) and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
        2. Whether the cost of plant and machinery not installed and workshops under construction can be included in the capital employed for tax relief purposes.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Interpretation of 'capital employed in the undertaking' under sections 84(1) and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

        The primary issue in both appeals revolves around the interpretation of the phrase 'capital employed in the undertaking' as mentioned in sections 84(1) and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court examined whether this phrase necessitates the actual use of the assets during the accounting period or if it merely requires that the capital has been invested in acquiring the assets.

        In Civil Appeal No. 1274 of 1980, the respondent-assessee, a public limited company, started a new industrial undertaking at Bhavnagar in the assessment year 1962-63. The assessee claimed relief under section 84 of the Act for the cost of plant and machinery not installed and workshops under construction, totaling Rs. 21,17,178. The Income-tax Officer denied the relief, arguing that the assets were not put to use during the accounting period.

        The Appellate Tribunal, however, held that the industrial undertaking at Bhavnagar formed an integral whole, and the new workshops under construction were part and parcel of that undertaking. The Tribunal concluded that 'the capital employed in the undertaking' should be distinguished from 'assets used in the undertaking,' and relief under section 84 is based on capital utilized for acquiring the asset, irrespective of its actual use during the relevant year.

        The High Court of Bombay concurred with the Tribunal and answered the referred question in the affirmative, favoring the assessee. The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation, stating that section 84(1) affords relief the moment 'the capital is employed in the undertaking.' The section does not specify that the asset should be actually used or utilized.

        2. Whether the cost of plant and machinery not installed and workshops under construction can be included in the capital employed for tax relief purposes:

        The court examined the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, particularly rules 19(1) and (6), which outline the computation of capital employed in an industrial undertaking. The Revenue argued that relief under section 84 was meant only for assets actually used in the business, while the assessee contended that the capital employed includes assets acquired for the business, regardless of their actual use.

        The court referred to the interpretation placed by the House of Lords in similar contexts and decisions of various High Courts, including the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Indian Oxygen Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 109 and the Karnataka High Court in Ravi Machine Tools (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 459. These decisions emphasized that the moment capital is utilized for acquiring any asset for a business, it becomes employed in the business, irrespective of the asset's actual use.

        The Supreme Court agreed with this interpretation, stating that once an asset is acquired or purchased for business purposes, it constitutes capital employed. The actual use of the asset during the accounting year is immaterial. The court concluded that the law laid down in Indian Oxygen Ltd.'s case and followed in Alcock Ashdown and Co.'s case represents the correct legal position.

        Conclusion:

        The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the cost of plant and machinery not installed and workshops under construction can be included in the capital employed for tax relief purposes under sections 84(1) and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the capital is considered employed the moment it is utilized for acquiring assets for the business, irrespective of their actual use during the relevant year.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found