9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the factory building should be treated as a plant for the purpose of allowing investment allowance and depreciation. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Treatment of Factory Building as Plant for Investment Allowance and Depreciation 1. Arguments by the Appellants: - The appellants contended that the factory building, where machinery and pipelines are installed, should be considered as a plant. The building is essential for the manufacturing process, such as grinding wheat and chana dal into aata, maida, and besan. - The appellants argued that without the building, the manufacturing process could not be carried out. Therefore, the building should be treated as a plant to allow depreciation and investment allowance. - They cited various legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Taj Mahal Hotel, which treated a hotel building as a plant, and other cases where cinema buildings were considered plants. - They emphasized the functional test, arguing that the building serves as an apparatus for the business, integral to the operation of machinery and pipelines. 2. Arguments by the Departmental Representative: - The departmental representative argued that while machinery and pipelines are part of the plant, the building itself cannot be treated as a plant. - He pointed out that the appellants had obtained a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation categorizing the building as a factory building, not as part of the plant. - He cited the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd., emphasizing that specialized construction alone does not qualify a building as a plant. - He also referenced other legal precedents, including the Delhi High Court's decision in R.C. Chemical Industries, which held that a factory building does not qualify as a plant for investment allowance purposes. 3. CIT (Appeals) Findings: - The CIT (Appeals) distinguished between the building and the machinery, holding that the building is merely a setting for the manufacturing process and not an integral part of the plant. - He referenced the Bombay High Court's decision in Caltex Oil Refining (I) Ltd., where protective fencing was considered part of the processing unit, but found no similar statutory obligation for the appellants. - He also cited the Delhi High Court's decision in Pure Ice Cream Co., which held that a cold storage plant was an essential part of the machinery, but concluded that the appellants' factory building did not meet this criterion. 4. Tribunal's Analysis and Conclusion: - The Tribunal examined the actual working of the plant and machinery within the factory building, noting that the building's structure supports the machinery and pipelines essential for the manufacturing process. - Applying the functional test from various judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the factory building is not merely a building but an integral part of the plant and machinery. - The Tribunal held that the factory building is eligible for investment allowance and other claims as made by the appellants, as it functions as an apparatus necessary for the business. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the factory building, where machinery and pipelines are installed, should be treated as an integral part of the plant and machinery. Therefore, the building is eligible for investment allowance, additional depreciation, and other related claims. The decision emphasizes the application of the functional test to determine whether a structure qualifies as a plant for tax purposes.
|
