1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>High Court: Roads & Culverts in Factory = 'Buildings' not Plant under Income-tax Act, Favors Revenue. No Rebate for Telephone Equipment.</h1> 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 ... Building, Depreciation, Developement Rebate, Roads And Culverts Within Factory Premises 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.