2009 (2) TMI 193 - HC - Income Tax

Industrial Company Concessinal Rate of Tax Investment Allowance Hotel Business held that - It is true that such activity has been held to be manufacturing process as defined under section 2(k) of the Factories Act. But, it is a well known canon of interpretation of statutes that the meaning given to the words in one statute cannot be automatically imported for interpretation in another statute. All depends upon the purpose of the Act and the context in which the words appear - The clear object of the Act was to give concession in the rate of income-tax to manufacturing concerns. The concession was not intended to be given to trading concerns. hotel business not entitled for concession - Admittedly, the assessee runs a hotel. It cannot be said that it engaged in Construction work nor can it be said that by running hotel it manufactures any article or thing. Hotel is made for lodging and boarding. No plant and machinery exist in hotel, which is referred to in section for the purpose of benefit under section 32A of the Act. Higher rate of depreciation not allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the assessee qualifies as an industrial company for tax purposes.
2. Whether the hotel business can be considered an industrial undertaking for tax benefits.
3. Whether the hotel building qualifies as plant for higher depreciation allowance.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The first issue revolves around determining if the assessee can be classified as an industrial company under section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1978. The Tribunal held that the assessee, a private limited company operating a hotel business, should be considered an industrial company entitled to tax benefits. However, the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Berry's Hotels P. Ltd. disagreed, emphasizing that the purpose of the Act was to provide tax concessions to manufacturing concerns, not trading activities. The court highlighted that the interpretation of 'processing' should align with the Act's objective, distinguishing between manufacturing and trading activities.

Issue 2:
The second issue addresses whether a hotel business qualifies as an industrial undertaking for tax purposes. The Tribunal considered the hotel business akin to production activities, citing the Kerala High Court judgment in CIT v. Casino P. Ltd. The Rajasthan High Court, in CIT v. Smt. Geeta Devi Purohit, clarified that hotels do not engage in manufacturing or construction activities to be deemed industrial undertakings. The Supreme Court in Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. ITO further rejected the claim that hotel operations constitute manufacturing activities, denying investment allowances under section 32A of the Income-tax Act.

Issue 3:
The final issue concerns whether the hotel building can be classified as plant for claiming higher depreciation rates. The Supreme Court in CIT v. Anand Theatres clarified that buildings used for hotels or cinemas do not qualify as plant under section 32, which specifies separate depreciation for buildings and machinery. The court emphasized that a building adapted for hotel operations is not inherently plant, citing precedents and distinguishing between structures designed for operational functions and those serving as premises.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue on all three issues, denying the assessee's claims for tax benefits and higher depreciation rates related to the hotel business and building. The judgments cited emphasized the distinction between industrial activities and trading or service-oriented operations, clarifying the eligibility criteria for tax concessions and depreciation allowances under the relevant tax laws.