1985 (4) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r hearing both the parties, we dispose of ground Nos. 4 and 5 of the Departmental Appeal pertaining to the asst. yr. 1975-76 as under: In ground No. 4, the point raised is that the CIT(A) erred in directing the ITO to allow development rebate on lights as also initial depreciation on the same. The Tribunal in their earlier order dt. 21st Jan., 1980 vide para 5(b) of their order held that the lights installed in the assessee's factory were "absolutely essential for the purpose of the business of the assessee", and consequently they constitute 'plant' within the meaning of s. 43 (3). The Tribunal accordingly held that the CIT (A) was justified in directing the ITO to allow development rebate on expenditure incurred on lights installed in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m/1979, on a due consideration of the submissions that were made both by the Departmental Representative and the assessee's counsel held as follows: In our opinion, the assessee deserves to succeed. The word 'plant' must be given wider meaning. In its ordinary sense, it includes whatever apparatus is used by a business man for carrying on his business. In view of the submissions of the ld. Representative of the assessee, we hold that since the lights under consideration are absolutely essential for the purpose of the business of the assessee, they constitute 'plant' within the meaning of s. 43 (3). The CIT (A) has, therefore, rightly allowed development rebate in respect of the expenditure on the same." The Bombay High Court decision in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....absolutely essential for carrying on the business by the assessee. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal held that the light installations came within the ambit of s. 43(3) and consequently in respect of expenditure incurred on the same, the assessee was entitled to development rebate. Since we agree with the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of initial depreciation claimed on light installations. The CIT (A)'s order in this regard is accordingly upheld. 4. In ground No. 5, the point raised is whether the CIT (A) has erred in directing the ITO to ignore the liabilities in computing the capital base for working out the relief allowable in terms of s. 80J of the Act. The point at is....