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 Reference No. 39 of 1958
Judge
Reported inAIR1960Bom218; [1959]36ITR580(Bom)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 10(2)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay
RespondentSaraspur Mills Ltd.
Appellant AdvocateG.N. Joshi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateN.A. Palkhivala, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....in 1954-55 - assessees claimed development rebate under section 10 (2) (vi) in 1955-56 - motor-cars and bicycles were 'plant' under section 10 (2) (vib) - motor-cars and bicycles installed after 31.031954 - motor-cars and bicycles wholly used for purpose of business carried on by assessees - development rebate allowed. - - the legislature has given a special definition of the expression 'plant' in sub-section (5) of section 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 sub-section (2)(vi) of section 10 we will not be justified in holding that..........will not be justified in holding that notwithstanding the definition which is specially devised for sub-section (2), the expression 'plant' will not include vehicles, books, scientific apparatus and surgical equipment, some of which by their very 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 expression 'installed' is also used in the sense of 'inducted or introduced', and if that be the sense in which that expression is used, there is nothing inconsistent in the context in which that word is used which will justify us in holding that the.....
Judgment:

Shah, J.

1. This assesses 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 bicycles for use in their business and claimed in the year of assessment 1955-56 development rebate under section 10(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax authorities allowed the assesses the normal depreciation on the motor-cars and the bicycles under section 10(2)(vi). The Tribunal also allowed to the assesses development rebate in respect of the motor-cars and bicycles holding that the motor-cars and bicycles were 'plant' within the meaning of section 10(2)(vib) of the Income-tax Act and that the same had been 'installed' after 31st March, 1954, and had been wholly used for the purpose of the business carried on by the assesses.

2. In this reference, Mr. Joshi for the Department contends that even though within the definition of the expression 'plant' in section 10(5) of the Income-tax Act, vehicles may be included, for the purpose of sub-section (2)(vib) of section 10 of the Act vehicles are not included in that expression. Mr. Joshi contends that the Legislature has advisedly used the expressions 'installed' and 'installation' in sub-section (2)(vib) of section 10 and that those expressions postulate that the 'plant' must be fixed in position 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 (vib) of sub-section (2) of section 10. We are unable to accept that contention. The Legislature has given a special definition of the expression 'plant' in sub-section (5) of section 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 sub-section (2)(vi) of section 10 we will not be justified in holding that notwithstanding the definition which is specially devised for sub-section (2), the expression 'plant' will not include vehicles, books, scientific apparatus and surgical equipment, some of which by their very 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 expression 'installed' is also used in the sense of 'inducted or introduced', and if that be the sense in which that expression is used, there is nothing inconsistent in the context in which that word is used which will justify us in holding that the word 'plant' in section 10, sub-section (2), clause (vib), of the Income-tax Act was not intended to include vehicles.

3. We, therefore, proceed to answer the question referred to us for decision in the affirmative. The Commissioner to pay the costs of the assesses.

4. Question answered in the affirmative.


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