Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.23 seconds)
Parakh Foods (P.) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 December, 1992 cites

C.I.T. Andhra Pradesh vs M/S Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad on 12 August, 1971

How the appellants have claimed depreciation allowance is not a material point. The material point is whether the claim made by them was proper or not. The Assessing Officer compared the factory buildings erected by the appellants with that of the hotel provided better amenities and facilities like bath rooms and toilets to attract the customers. This comparison even relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44 does not appear suitable. The sanitary and pipeline fittings in hotel even though treated as plant stands on a different footing. There is no doubt that factory buildings are part of setting in which the business of manufacturing the above referred articles is done. At the same time the erection of building without which the business cannot be carried on is to be considered appropriately. There is no doubt it is a matter of convenience that the machineries and pipelines have been made to rest on some of the walls of the factory building but it would be incorrect to say that the said building do not play any role in the grinding of flour of wheat and chana dal. There is also no doubt that the grinding of wheat and chana dal is carried out by the appellants' company with the help of the fitted machinery. But it would be incorrect to say that the said business does not require the help of the factory building.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 327 - A N Grover - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Caltex Oil Refining (I) Ltd. on 8 July, 1975

7. The CIT (Appeals) has considered the part of air-conditioning plant at the cold storage as part of plant and machinery, but held that the factory building of the appellants is not an integral part of the machinery. According to him they do not fall within the ambit of term "plant". The Bombay High Court has held in the case of CIT v. Caltex OH Refining (I) Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 260 that the refinery processing could not be put into use without protective fencing and from that point of view the fencing could be regarded as part of the processing unit. The fencing was required to be installed as per the approval of the Chief Inspector of the Factories. Therefore the CIT (Appeals) considered that there was no such legal obligation on the appellants to erect particular type of building to install machinery and pipelines and therefore they cannot be considered as an integral part of the plant. It is immaterial to find whether there is statutory obligation or not. A question involved is whether a particular type of erection of building is required to carry on particular type of business or not.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply ... on 26 March, 1978

Another decision in the case of Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. (supra) was also cited. A dictionary meaning from Webster, 3rd International Dictionary page 1731 on factory or work shop for manufacturing product is sought to be followed. He has contended that the ratio of various decisions cited above is to apply the functional test to establish that the factory building is an integral part of plant and machinery.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-I vs Pure Ice Cream Co. on 16 April, 1981

He has further held that the construction of the cold storage plant was an essential part of the machinery as held by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Pure Ice Cream Co. [1981] 129 ITR 3942. Again he arrived to a conclusion that factory building of the appellants was not an integral part of plant and machinery and that it is only a setting in which the manufacturing process is carried out by the assessee's company.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 9 - S Ranganathan - Full Document

C.I.T., Pune vs Sandvik Asia Ltd. on 11 November, 1983

18. Shri Khandelwal in his reply has reiterated his arguments to apply the functional test. While distinguishing the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) he has submitted that the Bombay High Court has not laid down any principle that the factory building cannot be treated as a 'plant'. According to him the said decision is not a guideline for not considering the factory building as a plant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 18 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

C.I.T. Gujarat vs Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd on 21 July, 1987

The functioning test was applied in that case by agreeing with the principles laid down by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd. [1974] 96 ITR 672. It is laid down by the Gujarat High Court that the relevant test to be applied isDoes it fulfil the function of plant in the assessees" trading activity? Is it the tool of the taxpayer's trade? If it is, then it is plant, no matter that it is not very long lasting or does not contain working parts such as a machine does and plays a merely passive role in the accomplishment of the trading purposes. By applying the tests laid down by the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts, the CIT (Appeals) held that the factory buildings are places where the appellants carry on its manufacturing activity. Therefore, according to him the factory buildings are not integral part of plant and machinery and they are not entitled to any normal depreciation, additional depreciation and extra shift allowance and investment allowance which are allowable in the case of plant and machinery. Therefore, he differed from the view taken by his predecessor vide his appellate order dated 26-7-1988. He has also given a finding that merely because some portions of the machineries passed through other floors of the factory building it does not mean the buildings are to be accepted as an integral part of plant and machinery.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 108 - M Rangnath - Full Document

S.K. Tulsi And Sons vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 September, 1990

While advancing arguments to apply a functional test to treat the factory building as a plant he took us through the provisions of Section 32A for granting investment allowance relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of S.K. Tulsi & Sons v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 685 and also in the case of Tulsi Theatre v. CIT[ 1991] 190 ITR 575 wherein it is held that the building constructed has been used as cinema theatre alongwith its fittings and futures and the cinema building constituted 'plant' and the same was therefore entitled to depreciation and development rebate.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 25 - B P Reddy - Full Document

The Commisioner Of Income-Tax vs The Mazagaon Dock Limited on 15 October, 1937

He has contended that the last paragraph from page 466 in Mazagaon Dock Ltd. 's case (supra) supports his case and he has further urged that the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Madras Cements Ltd. (supra) supports this case. He has also pointed out a commentary from Kanga & Palkhiwala. 8th Edition on Income-tax and relied on the said commentary wherein it is commented that how the factory building becomes the integral part of the plant and machinery.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Madras Cements Ltd. on 2 February, 1977

He has contended that the last paragraph from page 466 in Mazagaon Dock Ltd. 's case (supra) supports his case and he has further urged that the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Madras Cements Ltd. (supra) supports this case. He has also pointed out a commentary from Kanga & Palkhiwala. 8th Edition on Income-tax and relied on the said commentary wherein it is commented that how the factory building becomes the integral part of the plant and machinery.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next