Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)Section 32 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat-I vs S.L.M. Maneklal Industries Ltd. on 13 February, 1976
7. On this view of the matter "know-how " was held to be a peculiar kind of asset and an accumulated fund of knowledge acquired by years of observation, research, experiment and experience. It was observed that when books which one consults to inform one's mind and thereby uses them in the course of one's business or profession are expressly included within the meaning of the word "plant", there is no reason to exclude from the wide meaning of the term objects of similar nature such as drawings, patterns, designs, etc., which, like books, are the embodiments of know-how and serve the purpose of teaching in the long range. Again, in CIT v. S, L. M. Maneklal Industries Ltd. [1977] 107 ITR 133 (Guj), the same court treated the workshop drawings as coming within the definition of " plant ".
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. on 30 November, 1977
8. Fencing constructed around the processing unit under the Petroleum Rules, 1937, was held to be a plant by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Caltex Oil Refining (India] Ltd. [1979] 116 ITR 404.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Warner Hindustan Ltd. on 18 January, 1978
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 15 has treated a well dug for the purposes of carrying on the business of manufacturing pharmaceutical as a plant within the definition of this expression as given in Section 43(3).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kanodia Cold Storage on 7 May, 1974
tion of the legislature when it made provision in the definition of " plant" that even books would be treated as plant. It was also emphasised that the use to which these warehouses were admittedly put by the assessee would bring them within the definition of " plant ", Our attention was invited to CIT v. Kanodia Cold Storage [1975] 100 ITR 155 (All). In that case the view expressed was that in common parlance the word " plant " includes within its ambit buildings and equipment used for manufacturing purposes and the definition of plant in Section 43(3) is inclusive and does not exclude things normally included in it. A building with insulated walls used as a freezing chamber, though not machinery or a part thereof, was treated as part of the air-conditioning plant of the cold storage of the assessee.
C.I.T. Andhra Pradesh vs M/S Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad on 12 August, 1971
2. On appeal, the AAC took a contrary view and relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44, held that the warehouses of the assessee were " buildings which were used for trade and they were entitled to development rebate if other conditions are fulfilled ". Since the ITO had not given any other ground for not allowing development rebate except that the warehouses did not amount to installations, the AAC accepted the assessee's claim and allowed the claim for development rebate. Being aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal but remained unsuccessful and now at its instance the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion :
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. on 5 February, 1974
In CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. [1974] 96 ITR 672, where the
question before the Gujarat High Court was whether drawings and patterns received by an assessee from a foreign company under a collaboration
agreement can be said to be plant on which depreciation is allowable under Section 32 of the Act, a large number of English and Indian cases were considered and it was ultimately held (p. 710) :
1