Hotel furniture depreciation depends on separate classification; furniture cannot be treated as plant for the higher rate.

Furniture used in a hotel could not be treated as "plant" for claiming 100 per cent depreciation because the depreciation schedule separately classifies furniture and plant under distinct heads in Appendix I. The Court rejected the earlier view that hotel furniture may be brought within the expression plant for this purpose and held that depreciation must be claimed according to the specific category assigned in the schedule. The question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and the higher depreciation claim on the furniture items was disallowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether furniture used in a hotel is to be treated as plant for the purpose of claiming 100 per cent depreciation under the depreciation schedule.

Analysis: The claim depended on whether furniture items, though separately listed in the depreciation table, could still be brought within the expression plant. The Court held that furniture and plant are placed under distinct heads in Appendix I, and therefore furniture cannot be treated as plant for claiming the higher rate of depreciation. The earlier view treating hotel furniture as plant was not accepted for this purpose.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to 100 per cent depreciation on the furniture items; depreciation was allowable only in accordance with Appendix I, and the question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the higher depreciation claim on hotel furniture was disallowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the depreciation table separately classifies furniture and plant, furniture cannot be treated as plant for claiming depreciation at the rate applicable to plant.

---