2002 PLP 1659 (PTD)
COVELONG BEACH HOTEL (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1659 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 242 I T R 512 |
| Bench Members | R. Jayasimha Babu and N. V. Balasubramanian, JJ |
| Parties | COVELONG BEACH HOTEL (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1659 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1659 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 242 I T R 512 bench comprising: R. Jayasimha Babu and N. V. Balasubramanian, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1659 (PTD) (COVELONG BEACH HOTEL (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Extra depreciation
Law applicable
Condition that assessee should obtain approval of Central Government for purposes of S.33
Withdrawal of development rebate w.e.f.. 1-6-1974
Section 33 was not repealed
Assessee which had obtained requisite approval was entitled to extra depreciation for assessment year 1982-83
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 32 & 33
Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962. The provisions for extra depreciation and development rebate are independent provisions. Section 33 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with development rebate. The development rebate was withdrawn with effect from June 1, 1974. However, section 33 was not repealed. While withdrawing the development rebate, the provision for extra depreciation allowance was not withdrawn. The extra depreciation allowance continued to be allowable. The fact that the development rebate was withdrawn did not have the effect of deleting the provision for extra depreciation allowance in sub-item (iii) of item III of Part I of Appendix 1 to the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The reference made to section 33 in sub-item (iii) of item III of Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules is only for the purpose of ensuring that the assessee which makes the claim for extra depreciation allowance had the approval of the Central Government for the purpose of section 33 of the Act: Held, that, in the instant case, for the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee hotel had secured the approval of the Department of Tourism which was admittedly the authority competent to grant approval under section 33 of the Act. It had also satisfied the other requirements of sub-item (iii) of item III of Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules. It was, therefore, entitled to extra depreciation for the assessment year 1982-83. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.
Judgment & Decree
R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.
The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee arising out of the assessment of the assessee's income for the assessment year 1982-83 is as to whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim for extra depreciation allowance is not allowable. The assessee is a hotel having five star facilities in Covelong village. For the relevant assessment year, it had secured the approval of the Department of Tourism which is admittedly the authority competent to grant approval under section 33 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is also not disputed that section 33 remained in the statute book during the relevant assessment year. Before the `Tribunal there was no dispute about the competence of the Tourism Department to grant approval. It is submitted at the Bar before us that the power of the Central Government under the proviso to section 33(6) has been delegated to the Department of Tourism. Section 33 of the Act deals with development rebate. The development rebate was withdrawn with effect from June 1, 1974. However, section 33 was not repealed. While withdrawing the development rebate, the provision for extra depreciation allowance was not withdrawn. The extra depreciation allowance continued to be allowable. The fact that the development rebate was withdrawn did not have the effect of deleting the provision for extra depreciation allowance in sub-item (iii) of item III of Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962. . The Tribunal has misled itself in o ding that the extra depreciation allowance cannot be claimed solely on the ground that the development rebate was withdrawn. The two are independent provisions and the reference made to section 33 to sub-item (iii) of item III of Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules is only for the purpose of ensuring that the assessee which makes the claim for extra depreciation allowance had the approval of the Central Government for the purpose of section 33 of the Act. Admittedly, the approval under section 33 in favour of the assessee was in force. The assessee could not have been denied extra depreciation allowance if it satisfied the other requirements of sub-item (iii) of item III of Part I of Appendix I to the Rules.. The allowance claimed by the assessee was, therefore, allowable as it had the approval of the Central Government through the Department of Tourism under section 33 of the Act and had satisfied the other requirements of sub-item (iii) of item III of Part I of Appendix I to the Rules. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee is entitled to costs in the sum of Rs.750. M.B.A./713/FC ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Reference answered.