2003 (1) TMI 21 - HC - Income Tax

High Court instructs Tribunal to determine if building part of plant/machinery as per SC ruling

The High Court directed the Tribunal to determine whether the building or any part of it formed an integral part of the plant and machinery, in line with ... 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the building in question was covered within the meaning of the term 'plant' for the purposes of allowance of depreciation and investment allowance?' - we restore the matter back to the Tribunal to give this required finding for the purpose of investment allowance, and higher depreciation in the case of this assessee especially to examine whether the entire building or part of building is eligible for investment allowance and higher depreciation in the light of the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation Issues:1. Interpretation of the term 'plant' for allowance of depreciation and investment allowance.Analysis:The case involved an application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Tribunal referred a question regarding the classification of a building as a 'plant' for depreciation and investment allowance. The assessee argued that the building housing the plant and machinery should be considered a 'plant' for tax purposes, but the Income-tax Officer initially rejected this claim. Upon appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim, stating that the building was specially designed to support heavy machinery and, therefore, qualified as a 'plant.' The Tribunal upheld this decision.In further appeal, the Department contended that a building specifically constructed for a business purpose does not automatically qualify as a 'plant,' citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the respondent's counsel referred to a different Supreme Court ruling that recognized certain buildings as 'plant' if they were integral to the business operations. The Income-tax Officer had argued that the building in question was not essential for the functioning of the machinery and was merely a setting, but the High Court emphasized that if a building is an integral part of the plant and machinery, it should be considered for investment allowance and higher depreciation.The High Court directed the Tribunal to determine whether the building or any part of it formed an integral part of the plant and machinery, in line with the Supreme Court decision referenced by the respondent's counsel. The Tribunal was instructed to provide a specific finding on this matter within three months, emphasizing the need to consider the eligibility of the entire building or its parts for investment allowance and higher depreciation. The case was thus remanded back to the Tribunal for further examination and a fresh decision based on the principles outlined in the relevant Supreme Court judgment.Therefore, the High Court's judgment focused on the interpretation of the term 'plant' for tax purposes, emphasizing the need to establish whether a building or its components were integral to the plant and machinery to qualify for investment allowance and higher depreciation, as per the latest Supreme Court decision cited in the case.