9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the determination of whether the Income-tax Officer was obligated to compute and allow depreciation and extra shift allowance to the assessee for four assessment years, and whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could direct the Income-tax Officer to compute the allowance under section 80J. Depreciation and Extra Shift Allowance Issue: The High Court considered the case where the assessee initially claimed depreciation and extra shift allowance but later withdrew these claims in revised returns. The Court referred to relevant sections of the Income Tax Act and a circular by the Central Board of Revenue, emphasizing that if an assessee does not claim depreciation, the Income-tax Officer cannot grant it. The Court distinguished previous cases where the data was available for granting depreciation, noting that in this case, the assessee did not claim any depreciation in the revised return. Therefore, the Court held in favor of the assessee, stating that the Income-tax Officer was not bound to allow depreciation and extra shift allowance in such circumstances. Section 80J Relief Issue: Regarding the section 80J relief, the Court examined whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could direct the Income-tax Officer to compute the allowance under section 80J. The Court analyzed the applicability of rule 19A(3) and its conflict with section 80J, citing precedents from Calcutta and Madras High Courts. The Court concluded that if the allowances were not deducted, resulting in a book profit, the assessee was entitled to deductions under section 80J, limited by the gross total income. The excess amount could be carried forward for deduction in the next financial year. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee on this issue as well. Separate Judgment: It is important to note that the judgment was delivered by two judges, namely Rajendra Nath Mittal J. and M. M. Punchhi J., who both concurred on the decisions made in the case.
|
