1998 (10) TMI 29 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the business of the assessee-firm can be treated as a profession for calculating tax at a concessional rate under the Finance Act, 1982Rs.
2. Whether an assessee leasing machinery to others for production of articles not specified in the Eleventh Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the ActRs.

Analysis:

*Issue 1:* The assessee-firm contended that its business of clearing and shipping agents should be taxed at a lower rate applicable to firms engaged in a profession as per the Finance Act, 1982. The Income Tax Officer initially rejected this claim, but the Commissioner of Income-tax later held that the business could be treated as a profession for tax calculation purposes. The Tribunal, based on the activities of a customs clearing and forwarding agent requiring specialized knowledge, upheld the Commissioner's decision. The High Court, referring to a previous case, ruled that the services provided by the clearing and shipping agent did not qualify as a profession based on intellectual attainments or specialized skills. Consequently, the first question was answered in favor of the Revenue.

*Issue 2:* The assessee leased machinery to other parties for manufacturing articles not specified in the Eleventh Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the investment allowance claim, but the Commissioner of Income-tax approved it. The Tribunal, following a precedent, held that leasing machinery for manufacturing purposes qualifies for investment allowance. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the High Court confirmed that a leasing company owning machinery leased to third parties for manufacturing specified articles is entitled to investment allowance. Therefore, the second question was answered in favor of the assessee.