TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (7) TMI 20
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in its interpretation and application of section 35C of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the entire expenditure of Rs.47,49,973 was not eligible for weighted deduction under section 35C of the Income-tax Act? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that only 10 per cent. of the expenses incurred on dissemination of information or demonstration of modern techniques and methods of agricultural, animal husbandry or dairy or poultry farming or advice on such techniqu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted as plant?" At the instance of the assessee: "9. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that depreciation is not admissible on 30 per cent. of the value of the plant and machinery received by way of subsidy from the Government?" So far as questions Nos. 1 to 4 are concerned, it has been submitted by the learned advocates that this court has answered the said questions in I.T.R. No. 32 of 1987 (Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 766) and as per law laid down by this court in the said case, the first four questions referred to hereinabove are answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chilling centre to another or from one chilling centre to the factory. Some facts will have to be looked into for the purpose of answering the said question. The assessee claimed investment allowance on wireless equipments which were installed in chilling centres, factory and on certain vehicles. According to the assessee, the said wireless equipments or wireless sets were required for the purpose of regulating supply of milk to chilling centres and to the factory. Moreover, it was also required for the purpose of contacting veterinary surgeons. As the said equipments, according to the assessee, were machinery or plant, the assessee was eligible to get deduction under the provisions of section 32A of the Act as investment allowance. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the assessee as they were required for the purpose of maintaining contact between chilling centres inter se and between chilling centres and the factory. It also appeared to the Tribunal that the wireless equipments were very much required for the purpose of regulating supply of milk at chilling centres and at the factory of the assessee. Thus, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the wireless equipments had nexus with the production process and by observing so, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the assessee made under the provisions of section 32A of the Act. The learned advocate, Shri Akil Qureshi, appearing for the Revenue, at whose instance the said question has been referred to this court, has submitted that according to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fit of investment allowance. According to him, the Revenue must establish that the wireless equipment is an office appliance. It has been submitted by him that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion on the facts of the case that the wireless equipments/sets had nexus with the production process. He has relied upon certain judgments to show that the wireless equipment is not an office appliance and for that purpose he has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of CIT v. Tarun Commercial Mills Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 75 (Guj). He has also relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of CIT v. Cochin Refineries Ltd. [1995] 212 ITR 664 (Ker), to show that the vehicle which is used for special purpose may not be treated as a road transpor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d "appliance" has observed as under: "The word 'appliance' is qualified by the word 'office' and, therefore, we must give some meaning to the word 'office' and unless an appliance is capable of being primarily used in an office, it cannot be termed as 'office appliance'. It must be, therefore, an appliance which is generally used in office as an aid or a facility for the proper functioning of the office." Thus, this court has observed that unless an appliance is capable of being primarily used in an office, it cannot be termed as "office appliance". In the normal circumstances, wireless equipments are not used as office appliances in the office for the purpose of communication. Normally it is issued for the purpose of communication wi....