9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement for investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for plant and machinery installed for running hotel business. 2. Classification of a hotel building as 'plant' under section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement for investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for plant and machinery installed for running hotel business: The assessee, engaged in the hotel business, claimed investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer denied this claim, arguing that a hotel business does not qualify as an "industrial concern" that manufactures an "article" or "thing." The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this view, stating that there was no manufacturing or processing activity involved in the hotel business. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal, and the matter was brought before the High Court. Section 32A(1) of the Act allows a deduction for investment in machinery or plant used for business purposes, provided it is not installed in office premises or residential accommodation, among other exceptions. The court noted that food articles manufactured or produced by the hotel do not fall within the prohibited articles specified in the Eleventh Schedule. The court referred to several precedents, including CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44 (SC), where the Supreme Court held that sanitary and pipeline fittings in a hotel fell within the definition of "plant" for development rebate purposes. The court also considered CIT v. Sri Krishna Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. [1989] 175 ITR 154 (AP), which emphasized that the term "plant" should be given a wide meaning, including any apparatus used for carrying on the business. 2. Classification of a hotel building as 'plant' under section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: Section 43(3) defines "plant" inclusively, covering items like ships, vehicles, books, scientific apparatus, and surgical equipment used for business purposes. The court examined whether a hotel building could be classified as "plant" by applying the "functional test," which determines if the building serves as an apparatus or tool for the business rather than merely being a setting. The court cited several judgments, including CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao [1993] 202 ITR 303 (Kar), where a nursing home was considered "plant" due to its specialized use and equipment. Similarly, in CIT v. Hotel Ayodya [1993] 201 ITR 1002, the Karnataka High Court held that a hotel is not an "industrial undertaking" and that food preparation in a hotel is incidental to the service provided. The court also referred to S. P. Jaiswal Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (No. 2) [1994] 209 ITR 307 (Cal), where the Calcutta High Court concluded that a hotel building does not qualify as "plant" under section 32(1) of the Act. Conclusion: The court concluded that whether a building qualifies as "plant" depends on whether it serves as the setting for the business or as an apparatus with which the business is carried on. The Tribunal must re-examine the issue to determine if the hotel building meets the criteria of "plant" under section 43(3) and if the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A. The reference was answered accordingly, with no order as to costs.
|
