Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing First Leasing Co. Of India Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 30 November, 1982

Sri Balaji Metal Finishers vs Income-Tax Officer on 30 September, 1985

He further referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. (supra) according to which the only requirements for claiming investment allowance under Section 32A were that (i) the machinery should be owned by the assessee, (ii) it must be used for the assessee's business, and (iii) it must be used for the manufacture of articles specified in Section 32A(2). According to the learned Accountant Member, all these conditions were satisfied in the present case. He also took note of the definition of 'manufacturer' in Section 2(f). According to this definition, the word 'manufacturer' included not only a person who employed hired labour in the production or manufacture of excisable goods, but also any person who engages himself in their production or manufacture on his own account. The learned Accountant Member observed that the concept of 'manufacturer' under the Central Excise Act primarily includes a person who employs hired labour in the production or manufacture of excisable goods and it is only on an extended meaning that a person who manufactures 'on his own account' is sought to be included in the definition of 'manufacture'. Thus, according to him, the ordinary meaning of 'manufacturer' would refer to a person who does the actual manufacturing whether he does it on his own account or on somebody else's account. He rejected the argument of the department that the definition given in the Central Excise Act or the Factories Act could not be considered even 'relevant' for the purpose of deciding the point at issue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 32 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Durandel Foods (P.) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 30 July, 1983

Further as pointed out by the Madras Tribunal in the case of First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. {supra), the entire scheme of investment allowance contemplates relief in respect of machinery used in manufacture or production of an article or thing by a small-scale industrial undertaking or any other undertaking not producing the prohibited articles under the Eleventh Schedule. Since we have found that the machinery is used for production of a commercially different article or manufacture thereof, the machinery is entitled to investment allowance. In the view we have taken, it is not necessary for us to consider the further argument in detail on behalf of the assessee that even if the article before and after processing is considered to be the same, it would amount to production of an article or thing though not manufacture thereof.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Shri Leasing And Industrial Finance Co. ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 29 August, 1989

On behalf of the assessee reliance was placed on an order of this Tribunal in First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. v. ITO [1983] 3 ITD 808 (Mad.), in which Investment Allowance was held to be allowable to a leasing company. That was on the basis that the machinery was owned by the assessee and was used in an industrial undertaking for specified purposes although the industrial undertaking was not owned by the assessee. Leasing, being a business of the assessee, it was held that the machinery was used for the purposes of the assessee's business. We are here concerned with extra shift depreciation allowance which, as just stated, is admissible where a concern claims such allowance on account of double or triple shift working and establishes that it has worked double/triple shift. The assessee is a leasing company and admittedly it has neither worked double shift nor triple shift and, in our view, in terms of the provisions contained in the depreciation table in Appendix I of the Income-tax Rules, extra shift depreciation allowance was not admissible to the assessee even though the machinery might have been used by the lessee for more than one shift. Though it is true that depreciation whether normal or extra shift must depend on the extent of user of the machinery, but it is extremely difficult to measure the extent of user and that is why different types of provisions have been made under Section 32. As stated above, normal depreciation is allowable even if the asset is used for an insignificant period in the accounting year. On the other hand, under the depreciation table extra shift allowance is allowable only in proportion to the period for which the concern has worked extra shift. Further, there are many items of machinery on which no extra shift allowance is admissible. Therefore, it cannot be said that under the Act depreciation is always related to the actual quantum of use.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Data Base Industries vs Income-Tax Officer on 11 October, 1990

Ltd. (supra). Thus, we find that all the requirements of Section 32A are satisfied and it must be held that the assessee's claim for the allowance of investment allowance was permissible and was legally allowed by the Income-tax Officer and no error was committed by him in accepting the assessee's claim. We are also of the opinion that in this case no further enquiry is really needed to be made by the Income-tax Officer because all that was needed to be looked into had already been looked into by the Income-tax Officer. Before we part with this case, we will have to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Bros. (P.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Bangaru Manikyam vs Income-Tax Officer on 27 February, 1987

of 1984 dated 29-8-1984], the Tribunal applied the ratio of the decision in the case of First Leasing Company of India Ltd. v. ITO [1983] 3 ITD 808 (Mad.) (SB), wherein it was held that investment allowance is permissible even in respect of leased machinery. The case of K. Rami Reddi & Sons relied on by the revenue is also distinguishable. In that case, the godowns were constructed and leased out to the Food Corporation of India and the Tribunal had no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that after the construction was over, the only activity of the partners was to sit back and to realise the rentals (para 9). In that view of the matter, the Tribunal held that no business activity was carried on when the godowns were leased out and, therefore, the group of persons engaged in such activity could not be treated as a firm. In the case before us, some of the co-owners are partners in the lessee-firm running the rice mill.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Maheshwari Bros. on 8 October, 1991

Therefore, these orders can help the assessee only on one the part of the controversy which we have already decided in favour of the assessee by following the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. (supra). We are, however, of the opinion that the ultimate user of the kolhus and pans by the farmers cannot be described as their user in an industrial undertaking for the purposes of business. We, therefore, hold that the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance in respect of kolhus and pans which the assessee hired out to farmers and by which the farmers only carried out agricultural operation of extracting juice from sugarcane and boiling such juice for its conversion into guran agricultural produce. We, therefore, set aside the order under appeal and restore the Assessing Officer's order. The appeal is allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Inspecting Assistant Commissioner vs P.C.S. Data Products (P.) Ltd. on 2 April, 1993

11. We have duly considered the submission of the parties and the case laws relied upon by them. As regards investment allowance on computer systems manufactured and leased out by the assessee, the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. (supra) supports the decision of the CIT (A) and therefore, the order of the CIT (A) on this point is upheld.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.V. Salgaocar (Huf) vs First Income-Tax Officer on 19 January, 1989

15. We may here refer to the decision of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in the case of First Leasing Co, of India Ltd. v. ITO [.1983] 3 ITD 808. In that case, the main purpose of the assessee-com-pany for which it came into existence was to purchase machinery and equipments and to lease or otherwise deal with them in any manner whatsoever. The assessee purchased machinery of various kinds and pursuant to its main object of leasing it to others, leased the said machinery to various persons. The machinery leased out by the assessee had been employed by the lessees in such industrial undertakings as are referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section 32A. The Tribunal held that the claim was allowable. This decision would be of assistance in the present case. In that decision, the purpose for which the assessee has come into existence was to purchase machinery and to give it on lease. In the present case giving on lease, "charterparty by demise" is one of the modes in which the operation of business of ships can be carried out. Consequently the ratio of that decision would be applicable to the present case. It may be noted that the words in Section 32A(2)(a) are "business of operation of ships" and not the "business of shipping". What we have to consider is as to how the business of operation of ships can be carried out. If one of the modes of the business of operation of ships is to give it on lease for five years or for a period of lifetime, then such operation would be regarded as an operation in the course of business of operation of ships.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next