Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court classifies factory building as 'plant' for tax depreciation, overturns Tribunal decision.</h1> The High Court determined that the factory building housing the rolling flour mill qualifies as a 'plant' under the Income-tax Act. The court found that ... The question involved in these appeals is whether the building in question is a 'plant' and therefore the assessee is entitled to claim higher rate of depreciation. - we hold that the building in question is a plant and therefore the assessee is entitled to higher rate of depreciation as claimed by him. The appeals are allowed Issues Involved:1. Whether the factory building housing the rolling flour mill qualifies as a 'plant' for the purpose of claiming higher depreciation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Qualification of Factory Building as 'Plant':The central issue in these appeals is whether the factory building, which houses the rolling flour mill, qualifies as a 'plant' under the Income-tax Act, thereby entitling the assessee to claim a higher rate of depreciation.Background and Claims:The appellant-company, engaged in the manufacture and sale of atta and maida, established a rolling flour mill in a factory building at Athgaon, Guwahati. Initially, the assessee claimed depreciation on the building as a 'building' but later revised the return to claim depreciation at 25%, treating the building as a 'plant'. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this claim, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).Technical Report:The assessee submitted a technical report from an architect engineer, stating that:- The building is designed to hold the entire plant and machinery, with beams and columns erected to support the load on each floor.- Floors are constructed with reinforced RCC materials and have holes for flow pipes, belts, and chains.- The structure includes heavy reinforced steel and concrete to support heavy machines.- The building houses silos and storage bins essential for processing wheat.- The plant cannot function without this specially designed structure, making it an integral part of the plant.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Decision:The Commissioner, relying on the unchallenged technical report and certain judicial decisions, held that the factory building is part of the plant, entitling the assessee to the higher depreciation rate applicable to plant and machinery.Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Decision:The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which concluded that the building and machinery should be treated separately. The Tribunal ruled that the building is not a plant, thus only qualifying for a 10% depreciation rate applicable to factory buildings.Assessee's Appeal:The assessee challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the building should be considered a plant based on the materials and judicial precedents.Legal Definitions and Precedents:- Section 43 of the Income-tax Act defines 'plant' inclusively, suggesting that structures integral to business operations can be considered plants.- Judicial precedents (CIT v. Kanodia Warehousing Corporation, R.C. Chemical Industries v. CIT, CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao, CIT v. Anand Theatres) emphasize the functional test to determine if a building constitutes a plant. The test assesses whether the structure is an apparatus for business operations or merely a space for conducting business.High Court's Analysis:The court analyzed the technical report and judicial precedents, concluding that:- The building is specifically designed to support the plant and machinery, making it integral to the manufacturing process.- The functional test is satisfied as the building is essential for carrying out the business of manufacturing atta and maida.- The Tribunal's distinction between the building and plant was deemed artificial and contrary to judicial pronouncements.Conclusion:The High Court held that the factory building qualifies as a plant, entitling the assessee to a higher rate of depreciation. The appeals were allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order was restored.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found