2004 (10) TMI 44 - HC - Income Tax

Business of poultry farming Claim for deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I and 32AB - 1. Whether, the Tribunal was right in law in admitting the claim of the assessee for deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I and 32AB, in respect of business of poultry farming? 2. Whether, the Tribunal was right in law in admitting the claim of the assessee that the poultry sheds are plant within the meaning of section 43 of the Act? - Both questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of deductions under sections 80HH, 80-I, and 32AB of the Income-tax Act for poultry farming.
2. Classification of poultry sheds as plant for depreciation purposes.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Admissibility of deductions under sections 80HH, 80-I, and 32AB for poultry farming:
The case involved a dispute regarding the admissibility of deductions under sections 80HH, 80-I, and 32AB of the Income-tax Act for a poultry farming business. The assessee had claimed these deductions, which were initially disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the grounds that poultry farming did not qualify as an industrial undertaking. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the deductions, leading to an appeal by the Revenue before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, citing precedents. However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the business of hatcheries did not fall under the definition of industrial undertakings engaged in manufacturing or production activities. Referring to relevant legal provisions and judicial interpretations, the High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, concluding that the Tribunal erred in admitting the claim for deductions related to poultry farming.

Issue 2: Classification of poultry sheds as plant for depreciation purposes:
The second question in the case pertained to whether poultry sheds could be classified as plant for depreciation purposes, thereby allowing depreciation at a rate applicable to machinery and plant. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim, contending that poultry sheds did not meet the definition of plant under section 43(3) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the assessee's claim, which was further supported by the Tribunal. However, the High Court analyzed the definition of "plant" under section 43(3) and distinguished between the premises where business is conducted and the apparatus used in the business. The court highlighted that the term "plant" included machinery and equipment but not buildings. Referring to a Supreme Court decision and various legal precedents, the High Court concluded that poultry sheds, being structures primarily for shelter and not apparatus integral to the business operations, should be classified as buildings rather than plant. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, denying the classification of poultry sheds as plant for depreciation purposes.

In summary, the High Court's judgment addressed the issues of deductions under specific sections of the Income-tax Act for poultry farming and the classification of poultry sheds as plant for depreciation. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue on both issues, emphasizing the legal interpretation of relevant provisions and precedents to support its decisions.