Investment allowance for restaurant machinery allowed, but building not treated as plant for depreciation or extra-shift allowance.

Investment allowance was held admissible only for machinery actually installed in the restaurant, and not for the building itself; the claim succeeded to that limited extent. The restaurant building was held not to be plant for depreciation or extra-shift allowance purposes, following Supreme Court authority, so the related depreciation and extra-shift allowance claims failed. Relief was therefore confined to the qualifying machinery, while treatment of the building as plant was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether investment allowance was admissible in respect of the machinery installed in the restaurant. (ii) Whether the restaurant building could be treated as plant so as to support depreciation and extra-shift allowance claims.

Issue (i): Whether investment allowance was admissible in respect of the machinery installed in the restaurant.

Analysis: The allowance was confined to machinery installed in the restaurant. The claim was not sustainable for the building, but was maintainable for the machinery actually installed.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee in respect of the machinery installed in the restaurant.

Issue (ii): Whether the restaurant building could be treated as plant so as to support depreciation and extra-shift allowance claims.

Analysis: In light of the governing Supreme Court authority, the restaurant building could not be treated as plant. Once the building was not plant, the claim for extra-shift allowance on the building also could not succeed.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: Relief was granted only to the extent of investment allowance on the machinery installed in the restaurant, while the treatment of the building as plant and the related extra-shift allowance claim were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Investment allowance may be granted only in respect of qualifying machinery, and a restaurant building is not to be treated as plant for depreciation or extra-shift allowance purposes.

---