TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the tractor-trailer was inducted or introduced in the business and was, therefore, installed for the purposes of the business of the assessee entitling the assessee to claim investment allowance. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue - - - - - Dated:- 10-3-2005 - Judge(s) : D. A. MEHTA., MS. H. N. DEVANI. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by D.A. Mehta J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "B", has referred the following questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Baroda: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd leakage from various sections and units of the main plant, which were either pumped or otherwise collected thereafter for the purposes of treatment and recycling or being released. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the drainage and sewerage network running through the factory and attached to the plant and machinery was a part and parcel of plant and machinery itself. In relation to the second question, the assessee claimed that certain tractor-trailers were used in the factory premises for lifting and carrying equipment and materials. The cost of such tractor-trailers was Rs. 2,82,508 and on the said sum, investment allowance was claimed. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim by holding that they were road transport vehicles. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e meaning of definition of the said term under section 43(3) of the Act. It was further submitted that, for the purposes of ascertaining whether an item of plant or machinery is entitled to investment allowance or not, has to be tested by considering the function such plant or machinery performs during the conduct of the business of an assessee. (1) Shiv Construction Co. v. CIT [1987] 165 ITR 160 (Guj); (2) CIT v. U.P. Paschimi Kshetriya Vikas Nigam Ltd. [2003] 264 ITR 273 (All); (3) CIT v. Tarun Commercial Mills Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 75 (Guj); (4) CIT v. SLM Maneklal Industries Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 547 (Guj); (5) CIT v. Progressive Engineering Co. [1998] 230 ITR 729 (AP); (6) CIT v. Sibson Construction and Co. [1996] 221 ITR 468 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a deduction in respect of the previous year in which the machinery or plant was installed, or first put to use in the immediately succeeding previous year, then, in respect of that previous year. Therefore, whether tractor-trailer could be termed to have been installed in the previous year, even if it is treated to be a plant, is required to be answered. In the case of CIT v. Thyristors Controls P. Ltd. [1994] 207 ITR 317 this court was called upon to decide whether books containing practical know-how kept in the office premises were entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. After holding that books would be plant within the meaning of section 32A(1) of the Act, the court held that: "The word 'installed' occurring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
