Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Raju and - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported in[1966]60ITR246(SC)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 10(2)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax, Madras
RespondentRaju and ;mannar
Excerpt:
direct taxation - depreciation allowance - section 10 (2) of income tax act, 1922 - construction of provision of section 10 (2) - appeal came before supreme court - supreme court held, condition as to development rebate and depreciation allowance are same. - .....it by way of depreciation allowance. but the condition that the machinery or plant should be new is common for both. following the above judgment we dismiss the appeal. 5. appeal dismissed.
Judgment:

1. The question raised in this appeal depends upon the construction of section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, the relevant portion of which reads :

'in respect of machinery or plant being new, which has been installed after the 31st day of March, 1954...'

2. In the context of similar facts, this court construed similar words found in section 10(2)(via) of the Act in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mir Mohammad Ali.

3. The relevant part of that sub-section reads :

'in respect of depreciation of buildings newly erected, or of machinery or plant being new which has been installed, after the 31st day of March, 1948...'

4. Adverting to that clause, this court held in the case cited above that replacement of petrol engines in the buses by diesel engines earned the allowance within the meaning of the said clause. While the former provision gives allowance by development rebate, the latter provision gives it by way of depreciation allowance. But the condition that the machinery or plant should be new is common for both. Following the above judgment we dismiss the appeal.

5. Appeal dismissed.


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