2011 (2) TMI 200 - HC - Income Tax

Poultry sheds are plant or not - The building of the poultry shed has been specifically designed with a view to protect the birds from disease - It has been designed to ensure proper lighting and circulation of air; proper and scientific feeding arrangement; proper water system; proper arrangement for collection of manure and droppings; proper arrangement for medication and vaccination; and a right environment conducive for laying of eggs by the birds - The building had been designed in a manner so as to protect the birds and increase their productivity - The argument made on behalf of the revenue that the building can be used with certain modification for certain other purposes cannot be accepted - It is how the building is designed which is the main factor which is to be taken into consideration - The law is clear that if it is found that the building has been designed specifically to further the cause of manufacture or production then the same is a plant - Held that the poultry sheds are plant within the meaning of Section 43, as it then stood.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether poultry sheds used for the business of hatching constitute 'Plant' for the purpose of granting depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dealt with the issue of whether poultry sheds could be considered as 'Plant' for the purpose of granting depreciation under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court referred to a previous judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s.Shivalik Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd., where it was established that the definition of 'plant' under Section 43(3) is inclusive and not exhaustive. The Court highlighted that prior to the exclusion of buildings from the definition of 'plant' with effect from 1.4.2004, buildings meeting certain criteria could be considered as 'plant'. The judgment emphasized that the design and purpose of the building are crucial factors in determining whether it qualifies as 'plant'. In this case, the poultry sheds were specifically designed to protect the birds, ensure proper conditions for their well-being, and enhance productivity. The Court rejected the argument that the building could be used for other purposes with modifications, emphasizing that the design for manufacturing or production purposes is key in classifying a building as 'plant'. Therefore, based on the specific design and purpose of the poultry sheds, the Court concluded that they qualify as 'plant' under the relevant section.

The Court's decision was influenced by the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which concluded that the poultry sheds were designed to meet specific requirements for hatching business operations. The ITAT highlighted various features of the sheds, such as disease protection for birds, proper lighting, ventilation, feeding arrangements, water systems, waste management, medication facilities, and conducive environment for egg laying. These design elements aimed at enhancing bird productivity and were deemed essential for the manufacturing or production process. The Court emphasized that the design intent and functionality of the building are paramount in determining its classification as 'plant'. By applying the test of whether the building was specifically designed to further the cause of manufacture or production, the Court upheld the ITAT's decision and classified the poultry sheds as 'plant' within the meaning of the relevant section.

Ultimately, the Court relied on the precedent set by a Division Bench in a previous case to answer the question against the revenue authority and in favor of the assessee. The judgment reiterated the significance of the building's design and purpose in determining its classification as 'plant' for depreciation purposes under the Income Tax Act. The appeal was consequently rejected, aligning with the established legal principles and interpretations regarding the definition of 'plant' in taxation laws.