9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Depreciation rate applicable to the hotel building. 2. Classification of the hotel building as 'plant' or 'building' for depreciation purposes under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Depreciation Rate Applicable to the Hotel Building: The assessee claimed a higher rate of depreciation on the hotel building by treating it as a 'plant' under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) granted depreciation at 2.5%, treating it as a 'building'. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's contention, referencing the Madras Bench ruling in Hotel Srilekha (P.) Ltd. v. Third ITO [1983] 5 ITD 541. However, the department appealed against this decision, arguing that the statute prescribes specific rates for buildings and that hotel buildings should be treated as 'buildings' and not 'plants' for depreciation purposes. 2. Classification of the Hotel Building as 'Plant' or 'Building': The department contended that the hotel building should be treated as a 'building' under Section 32, citing provisions in Section 32(1)(v) and the explanation to Section 80J(6), which specifically refer to hotel buildings as 'buildings'. The department also pointed out that the depreciation rules grant extra depreciation for hotel buildings, indicating legislative intent to treat them as 'buildings'. The assessee argued that under certain circumstances, buildings could be treated as 'plants', referencing the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44, where sanitary fittings in a hotel were treated as 'plant'. The assessee maintained that the hotel building, designed exclusively for hotel use, should be considered a 'plant' as it is essential for the business. The Tribunal examined the submissions and noted that for the purposes of Section 32, depreciable assets are divided into four categories: buildings, machinery, plant, and furniture. The Tribunal agreed that while a building could be considered a 'plant' for certain sections, it does not necessarily apply to Section 32. The Tribunal cited the Bombay High Court decision in CIT v. Bank of India Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 809, which clarified that an asset considered 'plant' for one purpose might not be so for another. The Tribunal concluded that the legislative intent, as evident from Section 32(1)(v), was to treat hotel buildings as 'buildings' for depreciation purposes. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Taj Mahal Hotel, noting that the sanitary fittings were considered severable from the building, and thus, the building itself was not treated as 'plant'. The Tribunal also referenced the Bombay High Court decision in CIT v. Sandvik Asia Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 585, which rejected the argument that essential assets for a business must be treated as 'plants'. The Tribunal emphasized the functional test to distinguish between 'plant' and 'building', stating that a hotel building serves as the setting in which the business is conducted, not as an apparatus. The Tribunal dismissed the relevance of other case laws cited by the assessee, such as Cooke v. Beach Station Caravans Ltd. [1974] 49 TC 514 (Ch. D) and IRC v. Barclay, Curle & Co. Ltd. [1970] 76 ITR 62 (HL), as they pertained to different statutory provisions without specific classifications for 'buildings'. The Tribunal also noted that in a previous case, Progressive Hotels (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 846 (Hyd.) of 1984], it had held that hotel buildings should not be considered as 'plants' for granting depreciation, citing Section 32(1)(v). Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the departmental appeal, restoring the ITO's order granting depreciation at 2.5% by treating the hotel building as a 'building'. The assessee's appeal was dismissed, and the department's appeal was allowed.
|
