9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of the term "plant" for the purpose of depreciation and investment allowance in the context of a hotel complex. Application of statutory provisions under sections 32 and 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The case involved a firm operating a hotel and claiming the entire hotel complex as a plant for depreciation at a flat rate of 15 percent. The Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation on individual items at prescribed rates, leading to a lower figure for grant of depreciation. The assessee also claimed investment allowance based on the contention that the hotel complex should be considered a plant. The first appellate authority supported the assessee's claim, citing the decision in CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44, which interpreted the term "plant" broadly to include items like sanitary and pipeline fittings. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal considered the hotel complex as a plant, relying on a previous decision related to a similar case. The Tribunal viewed the hotel as essential to the assessee's business activities, qualifying it as a plant. However, the Tribunal's extension of this logic to grant investment allowance without thorough discussion raised concerns. The judgment emphasized the statutory provisions under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which specify depreciation for buildings, machinery, plant, and furniture separately. It highlighted that the claim for depreciation must be attributed to these items individually, precluding the entire building from being considered a plant. Similarly, section 32A addresses investment allowance for machinery and plant separately, with specific requirements for eligibility. The judgment criticized the authorities for not considering the basic statutory provisions governing depreciation and investment allowance. It noted that adherence to the statutory requirements would have prevented reliance on previous tribunal decisions. The judgment concluded by ruling against the assessee, stating that the grant of investment allowance without proper regard for statutory provisions was erroneous. The court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to take appropriate action based on the judgment.
|
