Soft drink manufacturing equipment qualifies as 'plant' for depreciation under Income-tax Act, 1961

The court held that bottles and shells used in the business of manufacturing and distributing soft drinks were considered "plant" under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee was entitled to 100% depreciation on these items as they were essential tools for the business and not stock-in-trade. The court emphasized that durability varies based on usage and handling, rejecting the Revenue's argument against depreciation. The decision affirmed the Tribunal's ruling, granting the assessee both classifications and depreciation benefits, with costs not awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether bottles and shells were deemed to be plant within the meaning of section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the assessee was entitled to 100% depreciation on bottles and shells.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether bottles and shells were deemed to be plant within the meaning of section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal held that bottles and shells (crates) used by the assessee for bottling and distributing soft drinks were "plant" within the meaning of section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court noted that the word "plant" is broadly defined and includes any equipment necessary for the purpose of the business. The bottles and shells, being essential tools for the business of manufacturing and distributing soft drinks, were considered plant. The court referred to the wide definition of "plant" as per the Oxford English Dictionary and previous judgments, including CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44 and Scientific Engineering House (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 86 (SC), which supported the broad interpretation of the term "plant."

Issue 2: Whether the assessee was entitled to 100% depreciation on bottles and shells.

The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was entitled to 100% depreciation on bottles and shells because the cost of each item was below Rs. 750. The court upheld this view, stating that the bottles and shells were not supplies or stock-in-trade but were tools used for the business of the assessee. The court dismissed the Revenue's argument that the bottles did not satisfy the durability test, noting that durability varies based on usage and handling. The court also rejected the contention that bottles and shells should be treated as supplies, emphasizing that they were repeatedly used in the business and did not get consumed like supplies. The court referred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in CIT v. Sri Krishna Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. [1989] 175 ITR 154, which held that bottles and shells used in the soft drinks business were plant and eligible for depreciation.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that bottles and shells (crates) were plant within the meaning of section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessee was entitled to 100% depreciation on them. Both questions were answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---