Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1977 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1977 (2) TMI 15 - HC - Income Tax

Issues involved: Determination of whether a special reinforced foundation constructed for a rotary kiln constitutes plant or building for the purpose of claiming depreciation and development rebate.

Judgment Summary:

The High Court of Madras addressed two references concerning the classification of a special reinforced foundation for a rotary kiln as either plant or building for depreciation and development rebate purposes. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal initially allowed the depreciation and rebate, but the Income-tax Officer later reclassified the foundation as a building, leading to the disallowance of the benefits. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered the foundation as a masonry structure, while the Tribunal upheld the foundation's classification as plant based on its integral role in the machinery's functioning.

The court analyzed the definition of "plant" under section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which includes various items used in business operations. Referring to previous cases, including Commissioner of Income-tax v. Taj Mahal Hotel, the court emphasized that the term "plant" should be interpreted broadly to encompass items essential for trade or industrial activities. The court cited examples where drawings, fencing, and even a safe deposit vault were considered as plant, highlighting the contextual understanding of the term based on the specific trade or manufacture involved.

Ultimately, the court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, considering the special reinforced foundation integral to the rotary kiln's operation as plant under the Income-tax Act. By aligning with the inclusive definition of "plant" and previous judicial interpretations, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the depreciation and development rebate claims related to the foundation. The questions raised in the references were answered affirmatively against the revenue, granting the assessee costs and counsel fees.

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of "plant" in the context of business operations, emphasizing the broad scope of the term to encompass essential components like the special reinforced foundation in question.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates