9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee which was declined by the Assessing Officer. However, the CIT(Appeals) has allowed the claim of the assessee. 6. From the record, it reveals that originally for the assessment year 1993-94 the assessee in its original return claimed the depreciation on building. Subsequently, the return was revised. The factory building was treated as a plant and higher rate of depreciation was claimed. During the course of argument, the learned Authorised Representative relied on a number of case laws where the building was treated as a plant. He relied on the following cases : (a) CIT v. Karnataka Power Corpn. [2000] 247 ITR 268 (SC) and (b) Dy. CIT v. Astra-IDL Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 564(Kar) In the case of Karnataka Power Corpn. it was ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as claimed that machines are fitted on each and every floor and all the walls are fitted with the electrical fittings and switches required to run the Mill. Before us, the dispute is whether the building of the said flour Mill is a plant or merely a building. No direct case law is available pertaining to the flour Mill. But the different High Courts have interpreted the word 'Plant' in different meanings. The 'plant' is defined in section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act. The same has to be construed in the popular sense, namely, in the sense in which the public conversant with the subject matter- in which the subject is dealing would attribute to it. In its ordinary sense, it includes whatever apparatus is used by a businessman for carrying on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he floors to carry the wheat and wheat products. 11. Theatre building is also well equipped with the machinery and walls are full of sound equipment and switches. But the same was not considered as a plant by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anand Theatres [2000] 244 ITR 192 where it was observed that the scheme of section 32 clearly envisages a separate depreciation for a building, machinery, plant, furniture, fittings etc. The word 'plant' is giving inclusive meaning under section 43(3) which nowhere includes the building, in the case of CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44 (SC), it was observed that the business of a hotelier is carried on by adapting a building or premises in a suitable way to the meaning thereby tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
