Commissioner of Income Tax vs Essar Bulk Carriers Ltd.

A.K. Rajan, J.—The questions that are referred to us in respect of the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 are :

"1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the dredgers were ships and hence the value of the dredgers should be included in the computation of capital base for working out the relief u/s 80J ?

Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the dredgers were ships and hence the investment allowance should be given in respect of the dredgers ?"

"Ship" is not defined in the Act. However, in Appendix I to the rules which is the table of rates at which depreciation is admissible, "ship" is defined to include dredgers. The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd., has held that having regard to the width of the meaning given to the word "ships" in the depreciation table of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, an expanded meaning has to be given to "ships" and pontoons and tugs are ships and are entitled to the higher development rebate of 40 per cent. A "ship" for depreciation and development rebate would be "ship" for investment allowance as well.

The questions referred are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.