Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)
Nowrangroy Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 6 June, 2003 cites

C.I.T., Trivandrum vs M/S Anand Theatres on 12 May, 2000

In CIT v. Anand Theatres [2000] 244 ITR 192, while considering the case whether hotel or cinema can be termed as plant, the apex court observed that there is well established distinction, in general terms, between the premises in which the business is carried on and the plant with which the business is carried on. The premises are not plant. It is proper to consider the function of the item in dispute. If it functions as part of the premises it is not plant. The fact that the building in which a business is carried on is, by its construction particularly well-suited to the business, or indeed was specially built for that business, does not make it plant. Its suitability is simply the reason why the business is carried on there. But it remains the place in which the business is carried on and is not something with which the business is carried on, except in some rare cases where it plays an essential part in the operations which take place. Hotel premises are not considered to be an apparatus or tool for running the hotel business but are merely a shelter or home or setting in which business is carried on. The same would be the position with regard to a theatre in which cinema business is carried on. Therefore, even the functional test is not satisfied.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 108 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kanodia Warehousing Corporation on 15 November, 1979

In CIT v. Kanodia Warehousing Corporation [1980] 121 ITR 996, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has considered the meaning of "plant" and held that in order to find out if a building or structure or part thereof constitutes "plant", the functional test must be applied. It must be seen whether the subject-matter involved, that is, the building or structure or part thereof, constitutes an apparatus or a tool of the taxpayer or whether it is merely a space where the taxpayer carries on his business. If the building or structure or part thereof is something by means of which the business activities are carried on, it would amount to a plant but where the structure plays no part in the carrying on of those activities but merely constitutes a place within which they are carried on, it cannot be regarded as a plant.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Dr. B. Venkata Rao on 24 February, 1999

In CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao [2000] 243 ITR 81, the apex court held that if it was found that the building or structure constituted an apparatus or a tool of the taxpayer by means of which business activities were carried on, it amounted to a "plant", but where the structure played no part in the carrying on of these activities but merely constituted a place wherein they were carried on, the building could not be regarded as a plant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 35 - Full Document
1