Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)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, the Supreme Court pointed out that it is well settled that where the definition of a word has not been given it must be construed in its popular sense if it is a word of everyday use. Popular sense means "that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing, would attribute to it". The very fact that even books have been includes shows that the meaning intended to be given to "plant" is wide. The word "includes" is often used in the interpretation clause in order to enlarge the meaning of the words of phrases occurring in the body of the statute. When it is so used, these words and phrases must be construed as comprehending not only such things as they signify, according to their nature and import, but also those things, which the interpretation clause declares, that they shall include. In the case before the Supreme Court, the question that arose for consideration was whether sanitary and pipe line fittings installed in a hotel can be regarded as "plant" so as to qualify for development rebate. The Supreme Court pointed out that to have sanitary fittings, etc., in a bath room is one of the essential amenities or conveniences which are normally provided in any good hotel, in the present times. A hotelier can reasonably expect to get more customers and earn larger profit by charging higher rates for the use of rooms if the bath rooms have sanitary fittings in bath rooms in a hotel were "plant" for the purpose of qualifying for development rebate.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. on 5 February, 1974
It may be incidentally mentioned that after exhaustively reviewing the case law on the topic, the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. [1974] 96 ITR 672, held that drawings ands patterns, which constitute know-how and are fundamental to the assessee's manufacturing business, are "plants". It is also well settled in view of the judicial decisions that neither the word "plant" nor the word "machinery" is confined to a self-contained unit-plant includes part of a plant, e.g., the engine of a vehicle; machinery includes part of a machinery, and building includes part of a building.
Cochin Company vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala on 14 March, 1967
14. Our attention was drawn by Mr. Joshi to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cochin Company v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 199 and the decision of the Punjab High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Milk Food Manufacturers Ltd. [1974] 96 ITR 278. Both these cases deal with reconditioning of old machinery, and in the first case, the Supreme Court pointed out that the question still remains whether the two machines after being reconditioned were entirely different from the old machinery and whether the latest improvements incorporated into them made the machines substantially new within the meaning of the relevant section. The Supreme Court in that cases found that the relevant materials on several aspects of the matter which were required to be considered, were not on record and, therefore, the decision of the High Court was set aside and the matter was remanded for determination of the relevant facts.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hindustan Milk Food Manufacturers Ltd. on 19 October, 1972
14. Our attention was drawn by Mr. Joshi to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cochin Company v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 199 and the decision of the Punjab High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Milk Food Manufacturers Ltd. [1974] 96 ITR 278. Both these cases deal with reconditioning of old machinery, and in the first case, the Supreme Court pointed out that the question still remains whether the two machines after being reconditioned were entirely different from the old machinery and whether the latest improvements incorporated into them made the machines substantially new within the meaning of the relevant section. The Supreme Court in that cases found that the relevant materials on several aspects of the matter which were required to be considered, were not on record and, therefore, the decision of the High Court was set aside and the matter was remanded for determination of the relevant facts.
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1