Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.28 seconds)Section 32A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs Arvind Mills Ltd. on 10 December, 1991
12. It is to be kept in mind that the same Act, i.e., Act 20 of 1967, inserted Section 43A and also amended the substantive provisions regarding development rebate by substituting an altogether new section. The Legislature in its wisdom apparently thought it appropriate to exclude development rebate from the purview of Section 43A. It is well settled that where the provisions of enactment are clear and do not admit of any doubt or ambiguity, it is not for the court to speculate on the reasons of the enactment. None the less, while considering the submission to that effect the Supreme Court in Arvind Mills' case [1992] 193 ITR 255, observed that it may be that the Legislature intended to give a different treatment to development rebate from depreciation and other allowances because the allowance of development rebate can result in an assessee claiming allowances exceeding the original cost. The Legislature perhaps thought that though development rebate was intended to promote development of industries, this could not be allowed at the cost of the foreign exchange resources of the country which are also depleted when there is an increase in the liability due to devaluation of the currency. I find sufficient force in the contention of Mr. Jain that if the Legislature intended to exclude investment allowance from the application of Section 43A, it could have mentioned the same in the body of Sub-section (2).