2016 (10) TMI 354 - HC - Income Tax

Eligibility to depreciation claim - Electrical installation treated as Plant and Machinery - Held that - The controversy raised in this case stands settled by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax v. Express Resorts & Hotels Ltd., 2014 (12) TMI 1256 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT wherein it has been held that electrical installations and sanitary fittings should be regarded as Plant for the purpose of depreciation in scheme of Section 32 of the Act. He submitted that the Division Bench took the aforesaid view by following the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel, 1971 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court and CIT v. Anand Theatres 2000 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court . - Decided in favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether electrical installation can be treated as "Plant and Machinery" for the purpose of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Analysis:
The Tax Appeal challenged an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, regarding the treatment of electrical installation as "Plant and Machinery" for depreciation purposes. The assessee had claimed depreciation on electrical installations at a higher rate than what was admissible, resulting in under-assessment of income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held the assessment as erroneous under Section 263 of the Act, directing the Assessing Officer to re-verify the claim. The assessee appealed this order before the Tribunal, which subsequently allowed the appeal, leading to the current Tax Appeal.

During the proceedings, the assessee relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Express Resorts & Hotels Ltd., which held that electrical installations should be considered as "Plant" for depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. The Division Bench's decision was based on earlier Supreme Court judgments in the cases of CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel and CIT v. Anand Theatres. The counsel for the assessee argued that this settled the controversy at hand.

The Revenue's counsel failed to provide any argument against the applicability of the Division Bench judgment or present any distinguishing feature to support a different interpretation. Consequently, the High Court, following the precedent set by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court decisions, ruled in favor of the assessee, upholding the treatment of electrical installations as "Plant and Machinery" for depreciation purposes under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. As a result, the appeal was disposed of in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.