Skip to content


Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bombay Vs. Saraspur Mills Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome Tax Ref. No. 39 of 1958
Judge
Reported in(1959)61BOMLR1338
ActsIncome-tax Act, 1922 - Sections 10(2)
AppellantCommissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bombay
RespondentSaraspur Mills Ltd.
Appellant AdvocateG.N. Joshi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateN.A. Palkhiwala and ;Dwarkadas, Advs.
Excerpt:
indian income-tax act (xi of 1922), sections 10(2)(vi-b), 10(5) - word 'plant' in section 10(2)(vi-b) whether includes motor cars and bicycles.;the word 'plant' in section 10(2)(vi-b) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, includes vehicles such as motor cars and bicycles. - - and in the absence of very strong indication to the contrary in sb-s......in this reference, mr. joshi forthe deptcontends that even thoug within the definition of the expression 'plant' in s. 10(5) of the income-tax act vechicles may be included, for the purpose of sub-section (2) (vi-b) of s. 10 of the act vehicles and not included in that expression. mr joshi contends that the legislature had advisably used the expressions 'installed' and 'installation' in sub-section (2) (vi-b) of s. 10 and that those expressions postulate that the 'plant' must be fixed in posititon when it is being worked or used and if a plant is from its nature or otherwise incapable of being fixed in position when it is worked, it cannot be regarded as included within the expression 'plant' as used in clause (vi-b) of sub-section (2) of s. 10. we ar unable to accept that.....
Judgment:

Shah, J.

(1) The assessees are a limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing cloth. In the year of account 1954-55 the assesses purchased certain motor-cars and bicyles for use in their business and claimed in the year of assessment 1955-56 development rebate under S. 10(2) (vi-b) of the Income-tax Act. The income-tax authorities allowed the assessees the normal depreciation ont he motor-cars and the bicycles under S. 10(2) (vi). The Tribunal also allowed to the assessees development rebate in respect of the motor-cars and bicycles, holding that the motor-cars and bicycles, were 'plant' within the maning of S. 10(2) (vi-b) of the Income-tax Act and that the same had been 'installed' after 31-3-1954 and had been wholly used for the purpose of the business carried on by the assessees.

(2) In this reference, Mr. Joshi forthe Deptcontends that even thoug within the definition of the expression 'plant' in S. 10(5) of the Income-tax Act vechicles may be included, for the purpose of sub-section (2) (vi-b) of S. 10 of the Act vehicles and not included in that expression. Mr Joshi contends that the Legislature had advisably used the expressions 'installed' and 'installation' in sub-section (2) (vi-b) of S. 10 and that those expressions postulate that the 'plant' must be fixed in posititon when it is being worked or used and if a plant is from its nature or otherwise incapable of being fixed in position when it is worked, it cannot be regarded as included within the expression 'plant' as used in clause (vi-b) of sub-section (2) of S. 10. We ar unable to accept that contention.

The Legislature ad given a special definiton of the expression 'plant' in sub-section (5) of S. 10 of the Act, and by that definition vehicles, books, scientific apparatus and surgical equipment purchased for the purposes of the business, profession or vocation are expressly included within the definition: and in the absence of very strong indication to the contrary in sb-s. (2) (vi) of S. 10 we will not be justified n holding that notwithstanding the definition wichis specialy devised for sub-section (2), the expression 'plant' will not include vehicles, books, scientific apparturs and surgical equipment some of which by nature are incapable of being fixed in position at the time when they are worked or used.

The assumption made by Mr. Joshi that the expression 'installed' must necessarily mean 'fixed in position' at the time when the plant is worked or used does not, in our judgment, seem to be justified. The expresion 'installed' is also used in the sense of 'inducted or introduced', and if that be the sense in whichthat expression is used, there is nothing inconsitent in the context in which that word is used which will justify us in holding that the word 'plant' is S. 10, sub-section (2), clause (vi-b),of the Income-tax Act was not intended to include vechicles.

(3) We, therefore, proceed to anser the petition referred to us for decision in the affirmative. The Commissioner to pay the costs of the assessees.

(4) Reference answered in the affirmative.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //