TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (2) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concerned is 1971-72 for which the previous year is the calendar year 1970. During the previous year, the assessee constructed a jetty at Shahbag in Thane District in the Panvel Creek. The jetty was for the purpose of handling storage and transportation of materials manufactured or handled by the assessee or its agents. The assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 6,41,193 for the purpose of construction of this jetty in the relevant previous year. The jetty was constructed under a licence granted to the assessee by the Government of Maharashtra. Under the terms of the agreement, the property in the jetty was always to be that of the Government of Maharashtra. The assessee, however, was given a right to use the jetty without payment of any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture. Since the jetty did not belong to the assessee, the assessee could not claim any depreciation. The second material contention relates to the computation of capital for the purpose of section 80J and the relief to be granted under that section. The Tribunal has held that the following amounts being liabilities of the assessee in the year in question were liable to be deducted while calculating the capital employed for the purpose of granting relief under section 80J: Rs. Banks 9,56,23,341 Public deposits 1,35,46,702 Current liabilities 2,97,41,538 Provisions for taxation 4,50,000 ----------------------- 13,93,61,581 ----------------------- From these findings and the judgment, the following questions are refe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Nos. 2 to 4 relate to the expenditure incurred by the assessee for the construction of the jetty. In the case of CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. [1988] 172 ITR 257, the Supreme Court dealt with a case where a tripartite agreement was entered into between the Government, the municipality and the respondent company. Under this agreement, the company undertook (i) to supply water to the municipality and provide water pipelines, (ii) to supply electricity for street lighting in the municipality and put up a transmission line for this purpose, and (iii) to concrete the main road from the factory to the railway station. The installations and accessories were the assets of the municipality and not of the respondent-company. The advantage s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal Machinery Manufacturers Ltd. [1991] 191 ITR 483 (Bom), the assessee-company was engaged in manufacturing machinery. It required water for industrial production. The assessee entered into an agreement with the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation for water supply connection. The assessee paid to M. I. D. C. Rs. 4.5 lakhs as charges for laying the pipeline. The court held that the sum of Rs. 4.5 lakhs paid by the assessee to the M. I. D.C. was revenue expenditure. The present case is very similar to the above three cases. The assessee by spending Rs. 6,41,193 has obtained the facility of a jetty for the purpose of transportation of materials required by it. It has got the benefit of the use of the jetty without payment for a pe....