Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.33 seconds)Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
First Leasing Co. Of India Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 30 November, 1982
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.)
E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954
4. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative, Shri Sandeep Tandon, submitted placing reliance upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sultan Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353, that the Income-tax Officer had not properly and adequately investigated into the facts whether the leasing out of the Computer would amount to carrying on of business or whether the income derived from hire charges should be assessed as income from other sources. This investigation is essential for the purpose of this case. The Commissioner of Income-tax was, therefore, justified in directing the Assessing Officer to investigate into the matter. Nevertheless, since the assessee had not worked out the Computer on its own but leased it out, the requirements of Section 32A were not complied with and, therefore, the investment allowance was not allowable at all. Placing reliance upon the words "wholly used" used in Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the use of the machinery must be exclusive by the assessee and if it is leased out, it would not satisfy the requirement of using it wholly by the assessee and, therefore, investment allowance becomes inadmissible. The Commissioner of Income-tax was, therefore, justified in holding that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer allowing investment allowance was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. He sought to justify the argument of the Commissioner of Income-tax on these lines.
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
6. There is no dispute before us that the Computer used and purchased by the assessee was not machinery. We do not, therefore, have to bestow our attention on this question. However, in a recent decision given by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Softek (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1990] in 32 ITD 540 (Delhi) it was held that Computers are entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act. In this decision several other decisions of the Tribunal were considered to arrive at the finding that Computers are entitled to investment allowance within the meaning of Section 32A of the Income-tax Act. We are in respectful agreement with this view and following with respect this decision we hold that the Computer in the present case is also entitled to investment allowance. The next question that remains is whether leasing out of machinery, i.e., computer would amount to carry on of business.
Krishna Associates vs Income-Tax Officer on 16 April, 1987
This requires that the machinery, i.e., Computer must be used in an industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of (deleting the words not necessary for our present purpose) production of any article or thing not being an article or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule. The argument of the Departmental Representative is that M/s Tata Consultancy Services is not an industrial undertaking. We cannot accept this contention for two reasons. One is, this is not the reason given by the Commissioner of Income-tax in his order or in the notice given by him to the assessee calling for his explanation. Secondly, there is no evidence to show that M/s Tata Consultancy Services was not an industrial undertaking. On the other hand, the proceedings have gone on, on the basis that the requirement was satisfied. We, therefore, do not accept this argument of the Departmental Representative. Secondly, it is now decided unanimously by several Benches of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that whatever was given out by a Computer amounts to production of an article or thing. We do not have to refer to the decided cases on the subject except to refer to a case decided by the Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Krishna Associates v. ITO [1987] 22 ITD 530 which was followed by Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Softek (P.)
1