TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (7) TMI 88
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" The assessee is manufacturing electrical conductors. In connection with its business it engaged motor cars in respect of which it claimed investment allowance of Rs. 58,732. The Income-tax Officer did not permit deduction of the allowance claimed ; so did the first appellate authority. Even the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal did not agree with the submission of the assessee and dismissed the appeal on November 30, 1983. It is that order which has given rise to the above question. Mr. K. K. Viswanadham, learned counsel for the assessee, contends that having regard to the historical background of the development rebate, earlier granted under section 32 of the Act, and subsequent introduction of the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wenty-five per cent. of the actual cost of the ship, aircraft, machinery or plant. The amplitude of this section has been restricted in cases falling under provisos (a) to (d) appended thereto. We are concerned with the second proviso, clause (b), which is in the following terms : " Provided further that no deduction shall be allowed under this section in respect of----. . . (b) any office appliances or road transport vehicles ;......." In a very elaborate and interesting argument, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Viswanadham, has contended that the investment allowance is not permissible under clause (b) of the second proviso in respect of any office appliances but in various judgments, the courts have granted such an allow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TR 140 (Bom) the question arose under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that motor cars and motor lorries put into use in an assessee's business are "machinery or plant installed" within the meaning of section 10(2)(vib) of the Income-tax Act and the assessee was entitled to "development rebate" in respect thereof. It was held that development rebate was allowable in respect of office appliances, though they were not included within the definition of the expression "plant" as given in section 10(5) of that Act and were not fixed to the ground ; and that conclusion was reached on the concession made by the Department that the office appliances were "machinery or plant" within the meaning of the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvestment allowance" was introduced in the place of "development rebate". This background also makes it clear that the intention of Parliament is not to grant "the investment allowance" in respect of "road transport vehicles". However, Mr. Viswanadham has further argued that the Calcutta High Court, the Gujarat High Court and the Karnataka High Court have granted "investment allowance" in respect of "office appliances" so the same approach may be adopted by us by granting "investment allowance" in respect of "road transport vehicles" as both the expressions occur in the same clause (b). In CIT v. Electronics Research Industries Pvt. Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 20 the question before the Karnataka High Court, was whether the internal telephone....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment allowance was held to be permissible in that case. Even in CIT v. Thyristors Controls Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 207 ITR 317, the Gujarat High Court did not hold as contended, that "books" were "office appliances" and yet investment allowance was permissible. The learned judges of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court having referred to the definition of "plant" in section 43(3) of the Act, held that "books" would be "plant" within the meaning of section 32A(1). Thus, in none of these cases the court held that "office appliances" were entitled to investment allowance. In those cases investment allowance was held to be permissible because the allowance claimed was held to fall under section 32A(1) but not covered by the proviso. In ....