2001 (9) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 988-89, the assessee, which is a firm running a theatre, claimed depreciation on the theatre at the rate applicable to "plant". The Assessing Officer rejected that claim and allowed depreciation on the basis that the theatre building was only a building. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the theatre building is a compact unit with necessary cinematograph .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . In the meanwhile, a Full Bench of this court in I. T. R. Nos. 54 and 55 of 1995 (CIT v. Hotel Luciya [1998] 231 ITR 492) held that the depreciation was to be allowed at special and higher rate in respect of the theatre building. The Tribunal thereupon allowed a petition by the assessee and upheld the plea of the assessee that it was entitled to a special and higher rate of depreciation. The R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to our notice that the Supreme Court in the decision in CIT v. Anand Theatres [2000] 244 ITR 192, has held that a theatre building is not a plant and the higher percentage of depreciation applicable to plant is not available in respect of the theatre building. In the light of this position settled by the Supreme Court, the substantial questions of law formulated in this appeal have to be answered .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X