1983 (9) TMI 111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nvestment allowance on the internal telephone installation in the factory. The AAC considered this item as an office equipment and refused to allow investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). Following the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. [1979] 2 Taxman 103, he .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... acturing work undertaken by the assessee. Without internal telephone system it is very difficult to carry on the manufacturing process undertaken by the assessee. The said internal telephone system installed by the assessee cannot be treated as 'office appliance'. It is a scientific apparatus within the meaning of plant in section 43 of the Act. So, this is a plant installed in the assessee's fact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... construed as 'office appliances'. It can, therefore, earn development rebate under section 33,..." The above ratio squarely applies to the instant case. For allowing the investment allowance under section 32A the Commissioner (Appeals) was right in following the above ratio. Thus, we uphold his order in allowing investment allowance on the installation of internal telephone system in the assesse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X