INCOME TAX OFFICER v. TILAK RAJ MADAN MOHAN
[Citation -1986-LL-0410-2]

Citation 1986-LL-0410-2
Appellant Name INCOME TAX OFFICER
Respondent Name TILAK RAJ MADAN MOHAN
Court ITAT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 10/04/1986
Assessment Year 1983-84
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags extra shift allowance • plant and machinery
Bot Summary: The Revenue is aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) allowing extra shift allowance on a generator. The ITO rejected the assessee s claim for triple shift allowance be observing that as per IT Rules no extra shift allowance is allowable on electrical machinery, which includes transformers and other stationary plant and generator being a stationary plant no extra shift allowance will be allowable on it. The CIT(A) has upheld the claim of the assessee by relying on a decision on IAC vs. Salem Textiles Ltd. 18 CTR 22. The assessee s counsel, Shri G. R. Sethi relied on, an order of the CIT(A) and cited not only the decision of the Madras Bench B referred to above but also two more decisions one of Chandigarh Bench ITO vs. Advanced Micro Devices Ltd. Ambala Cent, ITA No. 562/Chandi/1984 order dt. We, have considered the rival submissions and looked into the three decisions of the Tribunal cited by the assessee s counsel. The decisions cited certainly support the view taken by the CIT(A). We are in agreement with the view taken by the other Benches or the Tribunal and upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and reject the appeal of the Revenue.


It is appeal of Revenue for asst. yr. 1983-84 urging single contention. Revenue is aggrieved with order of CIT(A) allowing extra shift allowance on generator. assessee was allowed depreciation by I T O @10 per cent prescribed for plant and Machinery in general. ITO, however, rejected assessee s claim for triple shift allowance be observing that as per IT Rules no extra shift allowance is allowable on electrical machinery, which includes transformers and other stationary plant and generator being stationary plant no extra shift allowance will be allowable on it. CIT(A) has upheld claim of assessee by relying on decision on IAC vs. Salem Textiles Ltd. (1980) 18 CTR (Trib) 22. Shri M. S. Sethi as Departmental Representative relied on reasoning given by ITO in assessment order. assessee s counsel, Shri G. R. Sethi relied on, order of CIT(A) and cited not only decision of Madras Bench B referred to above but also two more decisions one of Chandigarh Bench ITO vs. Advanced Micro Devices (P) Ltd. Ambala Cent, ITA No. 562/Chandi/1984 order dt. 27th June, 1985 and order of Delhi Bench (D) Roop Textiles Industries vs. ITO ITA Nos. 2450 & 3976/Del/81, & 1927/Del/82 order dt. 6th July, 1982 includes in his paper book. We, have considered rival submissions and looked into three decisions of Tribunal cited by assessee s counsel. decisions cited certainly support view taken by CIT(A). We are in agreement with view taken by other Benches or Tribunal and, therefore, upheld decision of CIT(A) and reject appeal of Revenue. appeal is dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. TILAK RAJ MADAN MOHAN
Report Error