9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Correct approach to granting depreciation on chairs in cinema theatres. 2. Interpretation of the term 'plant' for depreciation purposes. 3. Treatment of chairs as separate units for depreciation calculation. Analysis: Issue 1: The Commissioner found the assessment for A.Y. 1983-84 by the ITO erroneous due to allowing full depreciation on chairs in cinema theatres. The Commissioner directed withdrawal of excess depreciation. The counsel for the assessee argued that full depreciation was allowed under section 32(1)(ii) and cited relevant case laws to support the claim. Issue 2: The debate centered on whether cinema theatre chairs qualify as 'plant' for depreciation at 100%. The D.R. contended that chairs cannot be considered 'plant' under section 32(1)(ii) as they are interconnected. Previous cases were cited to support the argument for granting depreciation at 15% only. Issue 3: The Tribunal analyzed the nature of chairs in a cinema theatre, stating they are essential tools for conducting the business of film exhibition. Each chair was evaluated to determine if it should be treated as a separate unit for depreciation calculation. The Tribunal concluded that each chair, costing less than Rs. 750, should be considered a separate unit eligible for full depreciation under the proviso to section 32(1)(ii). The Tribunal emphasized the definition of 'plant' and its role in business operations. It highlighted that chairs in a cinema theatre are integral to the business and fulfill the function of plant. The judgment stressed the common parlance test for determining plant status and the primary use of goods in trade and commerce. Regarding the treatment of chairs as separate units, the Tribunal noted that each chair functions independently, can be repaired or replaced individually, and serves a single person. It differentiated this scenario from cases involving integrated systems like electrical installations in hotels. The judgment concluded that the ITO's assessment granting full depreciation on chairs was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, overturning the Commissioner's order. In alignment with the arguments presented, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee, affirming the eligibility for full depreciation on the chairs in the cinema theatres.
|
