Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)
Babulal Agrawal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 April, 2004 cites

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

In CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44 (SC) the respondent, which ran a hotel, installed sanitary and pipeline fittings in one of its branches in respect whereof it claimed development rebate and the question was whether the sanitary and pipeline fittings installed fell within the definition of plant given in section 10(5) of the 1922 Act which was similar to the definition given in section 43(3) of the 1961 Act and this court after approving the definition of plant given by Lindley L. J. in Yarmouth v. France [1887] 19 QBD 647, as expounded in Jarrold v. John Good and Sons Ltd. [1962] 40 TC 681 (CA), held that sanitary and pipeline fittings fell within the definition of plant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 327 - A N Grover - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Birla Jute And Industries Ltd. ... on 17 January, 2003

We had occasion to deal with this question in CIT v. Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. [2003] 260 ITR 55 (Cal), therein we had held that the word 'plant' is defined in section 43(3) of the Act. It is not an exhaustive definition. It is an inclusive definition. It includes any article or object fixed or movable, live or dead, used by a businessman for carrying on his business and it is not necessarily confined to an apparatus which is used for mechanical operation or process or is employed in mechanical or industrial business. The test to be applied for such determination is : does the article fulfil the function of a plant in the assessee's trading activity ? Is it a tool of his trade with which he carries on his business ? If the answer is in the affirmative, it will be a plant."
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 13 - D K Seth - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs National Storage Pvt. Ltd., Bombay on 26 April, 1967

13. Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, has drawn our attention to certain decisions reported in CIT v. National Storage P. Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 596 (SC) and CIT v. Kanaiyalal Nimani [1979] 120 ITR 892 (Cal). On a careful perusal of the same, we are of the considered view that it is the functional test which becomes the real criteria for treating a particular tool as plant or not. As has been indicated by their Lordships of the apex court, the definition of the term "plant" is of a wide magnitude. In the instant case, as is perceptible, the assessee is not involved in letting out the premises to earn rent. It is evincible from the analysis made by the first appellate authority, the assessee is trading with godowns, structure is a temporary measure, it is like a platform as is apparent, the duration is short and the purpose is different. If one goes by the conception of functional test and the activity involved, there can be no scintilla of doubt that the use of the open plinth godowns are not buildings but are plant and therefore the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the basis that they are to be treated as plants and not buildings. The analysis of the Tribunal that the platforms come under the definition of "building" under the rules is not correct because the Tribunal has really not appreciated the essential and fundamental activity of these platform, the nature of agreement and the factual foundation. If the contract and the activity are understood in proper perspective, there can be no iota of doubt that the assessee is dealing in business with this kind of platform, but not letting them as buildings. It may apparently so appear but on deeper probe and closer scrutiny, something a different picture gets frescoed from where it becomes clear that it is utilised for the business purposes.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 105 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kanaiyalal Nimani And Ors. on 18 December, 1978

13. Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, has drawn our attention to certain decisions reported in CIT v. National Storage P. Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 596 (SC) and CIT v. Kanaiyalal Nimani [1979] 120 ITR 892 (Cal). On a careful perusal of the same, we are of the considered view that it is the functional test which becomes the real criteria for treating a particular tool as plant or not. As has been indicated by their Lordships of the apex court, the definition of the term "plant" is of a wide magnitude. In the instant case, as is perceptible, the assessee is not involved in letting out the premises to earn rent. It is evincible from the analysis made by the first appellate authority, the assessee is trading with godowns, structure is a temporary measure, it is like a platform as is apparent, the duration is short and the purpose is different. If one goes by the conception of functional test and the activity involved, there can be no scintilla of doubt that the use of the open plinth godowns are not buildings but are plant and therefore the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the basis that they are to be treated as plants and not buildings. The analysis of the Tribunal that the platforms come under the definition of "building" under the rules is not correct because the Tribunal has really not appreciated the essential and fundamental activity of these platform, the nature of agreement and the factual foundation. If the contract and the activity are understood in proper perspective, there can be no iota of doubt that the assessee is dealing in business with this kind of platform, but not letting them as buildings. It may apparently so appear but on deeper probe and closer scrutiny, something a different picture gets frescoed from where it becomes clear that it is utilised for the business purposes.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1