9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the expenditure of Rs. 53,49,374 was part of the actual cost of the plant and machinery to the assessee u/s 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for purposes of development rebate. Summary: Issue 1: Actual Cost of Plant and Machinery for Development Rebate The primary question referred to the court was whether the expenditure of Rs. 53,49,374, including interest on loans, was part of the actual cost of the plant and machinery to the assessee u/s 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of claiming development rebate. The assessee, a limited company engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda, had acquired and installed a new 60-tonne caustic soda plant. The Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation on the full cost but disallowed the inclusion of interest on loans as part of the actual cost for development rebate. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but reversed by the Tribunal, which allowed the assessee's claim. Legal Provisions and Judicial Opinions: Section 33 of the 1961 Act provides for development rebate based on the "actual cost to the assessee." Section 43(1) defines "actual cost" as the cost to the assessee reduced by any portion met by another person or authority. The court examined various judicial precedents, including the English case of Birmingham Corporation and Indian cases such as Commissioner of Income-tax v. Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Habib Hussein v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd., among others. Judgment: The court preferred the view taken by the Calcutta and Delhi High Courts, which included interest on borrowed capital as part of the actual cost to the assessee. It was held that interest paid on borrowed capital, till the building, plant, or machinery is erected or constructed, is part of the actual cost to the assessee within the meaning of section 33 read with section 43 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This interpretation aligns with both popular and commercial conceptions of actual cost. The court noted that interest paid after the plant is installed cannot form part of the cost of installing or establishing the plant. Conclusion: The court answered the question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, and against the department. The assessee was entitled to the cost of the reference. The judgment emphasized that interest on borrowed capital up to the date of completion of the building, plant, or machinery should be included in the actual cost for the purpose of development rebate.
|
