5. But one thing seems quite clear to me, and that is that if the legislature had used two different expressions, namely “machine” or “factory”, it could not have meant the same thing. Presumably, the legislature intended to express two alternative terms with these two words. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, there are no difficulties with the electric stove. It can be considered a “plant”. The distinguished Deputy Advocate General agrees with me on this. In all circumstances, it can certainly be considered a machine. But when we come to “Diesel Engine”, we are faced with controversy. There is no doubt that it is not a “plant”. The question is whether it is “machinery.” On behalf of the evaluator, it was said to be a machine. However, on behalf of the tax authorities, it is argued that it is only part of the machine and not a machine as such. 4.
The word “machinery” appears in Corporation of Calcutta v. President Cossipore and the municipality of Chitapore ILR 49 Cal 190 AIR 1922 PC 27 said that it was very dangerous to define this word. With regard to the connotation of the word “machines”, this decision states the following: Your Lordships agree with Lord Davey that it is very dangerous to give a definition of the word “machines” that will be applicable in all cases. It may be impossible to succeed in such an attempt. If their masters were compelled to take the risk of trying, they would be inclined to say that the word “machines”, when used prima facie in ordinary language, refers to mechanical inventions which, alone or in conjunction with one or more other mechanical inventions, generate force by the combined motion and interdependent operation of their respective parts. or cause, modify, apply or direct mutual forces with the object, each achieving such a definite and specific result. The tank and its support structure do not meet this definition. `In order to be entitled to depreciation of the initial depreciation under section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income Tax Act and additional depreciation under section 10(2)(vi)(a), the machinery must be regarded as a unit; Spare parts, as expensive as they are, should not be the subject of claims in this name. The definition of `land` in Article 10(5) clarifies that, for the purposes of Article 10(2)(vi) and (vi-a), `plant` is to be regarded as a unit. Certain parts are excluded from its scope. The term “machine” must also be considered in the same light and refers to “machine as a unit”. Tested by these observations, “Diesel Engine” is undoubtedly a “machine”.
“For the initial depreciation of a machine to be eligible, the machine must be a stand-alone unit that can be used in the enterprise for whose benefit it is installed.” Britannica.com: Encyclopedia Articles on Machinery The fact that the United States has never lost a NAFTA case shows how power affects the functioning of international law. Not only can the U.S. hire huge teams of the best lawyers, but it can also exert other pressure on weaker countries and international courts. The rules are not meaningless, but they are not completely neutral either. ISDS mechanisms are a highly controversial issue in recent free trade negotiations, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP, between the US and the EU).21 6. In common parlance — If 1 hour is properly informed of this point, a “diesel engine” is considered a machine. 1 For this purpose, the word “machine” has been used in section 10(2)(vi) and Rule 8 of the Rules made under the Act. Income Tax Act 1922 – section 10(2)(vi)(b), section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act 1922 – section 10(2), section 10(2)(vi)(b), section 10(5) – Definition of machinery 7. As noted earlier, there is no unanimity in judicial opinion on the scope of the term “mechanism.” In Maneklal Vallabhdas Parekh v Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay North, a chamber of the Bombay High Court held: “In respect of new machinery and equipment, installed after 31 March 1954 and wholly used for the purposes of the business announced by the assessor, an amount by way of rebate for development, for the year of installation, which corresponds to twenty-five % of the actual cost borne by the assessor of these machines or installations… ».