HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Commissioner of Income-tax

v.

Electronics Consortium (P.) Ltd.

MADAN B. LOKUR AND Dr. S. MURALIDHAR, JJ.

IT Reference No. 327 of 1998

August 16, 2007

Section 32A read with section 32, of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Investment allowance - Assessee company claimed investment allowance and additional depreciation on Photostat machine but same was disallowed by department – Whether in view decision in case of CIT v. B.N.B. Enterprises [2000] 242 ITR 439/[2001] 117 Taxman 712 (Mad.) wherein it was held that process of duplication by using a Photostat machine does not result in manufacture of any goods, articles or things, assessee was disentitled to investment allowance and additional depreciation claimed – Held, yes

FACTS

The assessee-company claimed investment allowance and additional depreciation on Photostat machine, which was disallowed by the department. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim.

On reference:

HELD

In the case of CIT v. B. N. B. Enterprises [2000] 242 ITR 439/[2001] 117 Taxman 712 (Mad.) it was held that the process of duplication by using a Photostat machine does not result in the manufacture of any goods, articles or things. In view of that decision the assessee was disentitled to investment allowance and additional depreciation in respect of Photostat machine.

Case Review :

CIT v. B. N. B. Enterprises [2000] 242 ITR 439/[2001] 117 Taxman 712 (Mad.) – Followed.