Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Khodiyar Pottery Works - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 280 of 1977
Judge
Reported in[1986]158ITR69(Guj)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 32(1); Income Tax Rules, 1962 - Rule 5
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentKhodiyar Pottery Works
Appellant Advocate S.N. Shelat, Adv.
Respondent Advocate K.C. Patel, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....of the income-tax rules, 1962 (as the text stood on april 1, 1973), the claim of the assessee for extra shift depreciation allowance in respect of the machineries which worked on triple shift is allowable even though the other machinery or plant did not work on triple shift ?'2. we need not waste public time in unnecessary discussion inasmuch as the conclusion reached by the tribunal is the only conclusion that can be logically arrived at. the assessee-company had worked only certain machineries (and not all the machineries) in order to run the third shift. the assessee-company claimed extra shift depreciation allowance in respect of only those machineries which were so used. the argument runs thus : the revenue contended that the extra shift depreciation allowance cannot be.....
Judgment:

M.P. Thakkar, J.

1. An impossible argument was advanced before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on behalf of the Revenue, which naturally the Tribunal turned down. Thereupon the Revenue applied for a reference being made to this court and the following question has been referred to us :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (as the text stood on April 1, 1973), the claim of the assessee for extra shift depreciation allowance in respect of the machineries which worked on triple shift is allowable even though the other machinery or plant did not work on triple shift ?'

2. We need not waste public time in unnecessary discussion inasmuch as the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is the only conclusion that can be logically arrived at. The assessee-company had worked only certain machineries (and not all the machineries) in order to run the third shift. The assessee-company claimed extra shift depreciation allowance in respect of only those machineries which were so used. The argument runs thus : The Revenue contended that the extra shift depreciation allowance cannot be claimed at all unless all the machineries were worked. If all machineries worked in third shift, extra shift allowance can be claimed. But if only some (and not all) machineries were used, no extra shift allowance can be claimed on ny machinery (not even on machineries actually worked). The fallacy in the reasoning is self-evident. The view taken by the Tribunal understandably is that since only some of the machineries were worked in the course of third shift, the assessee can claim extra shift depreciation allowance in respect of those machineries only. It would be illogical to hold that extra shift depreciation allowance can be claimed in respect of all the machineries or none, irrespective of whether, only some machineries are used or all. No other view is possible. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue.

3. There would be no order regarding costs.


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