High Court: Roads & Culverts in Factory = "Buildings" not Plant under Income-tax Act, Favors Revenue. No Rebate for Telephone Equipment.

The High Court of Gujarat ruled that roads and culverts within a factory are considered "buildings" under the Income-tax Act, not plant, based on a previous decision. Culverts were deemed part of roads and classified as buildings. Therefore, the court favored the Revenue on this issue. Regarding telephone equipment in the administrative building, the court determined that no development rebate is allowed for such equipment installed after March 31, 1965. As a result, the court sided with the Revenue, denying the assessee's claim for development rebate on the telephone equipment. The court directed separate registration for references from different assessment years and disposed of the reference without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether roads and culverts for the factory are considered as plant for depreciation and development rebate.
2. Whether development rebate can be claimed on telephone equipment installed in the administrative office.
3. Whether roads and culverts in the township qualify as plant for depreciation and development rebate.

Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat addressed three questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Regarding the first and third questions, the court relied on the decision in CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. The court held that roads and culverts within the factory premises are considered as "buildings" under the Income-tax Act, not as plant. Culverts were deemed part of roads and, therefore, also classified as buildings. Consequently, the court answered question No. 1 in favor of the Revenue and question No. 3 in favor of the assessee.

Moving on to question No. 2, the court noted that telephone equipment was installed in the administrative building, not the factory. Referring to section 33(6) of the Income-tax Act, the court determined that no development rebate is allowed for machinery or plant installed in office premises after March 31, 1965. As the telephone equipment was situated in the administrative building, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the assessee was not entitled to development rebate on the equipment.

Despite the Tribunal making a single reference, the court directed separate registration for the references from assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The court instructed the office to treat the references accordingly. Ultimately, the court disposed of the reference with no order as to costs.

---