TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Cinema building with fittings treated as 'plant' under section 43(3), allowing depreciation and development rebate claims.</h1> HC applied the functional test under section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to determine whether a cinema building with tube lights and fittings ... Entitlement to development rebate thereon and depreciation at 10% on building - Whether, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the cinema building and the tube lights together with fittings do not constitute plant within the meaning of section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? - HELD THAT:- In CIT v. Kanodia Warehousing Corporation [1979 (11) TMI 97 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], that, in order to find out whether a building or structure or a part thereof constitutes 'plant', the court must apply what is called the 'functional test'. If it is found that the building or structure constitutes an apparatus or a tool of the taxpayer by means of which the business activities are carried on, it would amount to 'plant' but where the structure plays no part in the carrying on of those activities but merely constitutes a place within which they are carried on, the building cannot be regarded as a plant. Following the principle of the said decision, it must be held that the building constructed and used as a cinema and wherein the cinema business is being carried on by the assessee does constitute plant along with its fittings and fixtures. Thus, the question referred herein is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Issues Involved: The issue involves the classification of assets for depreciation and development rebate under section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically whether a cinema building and its fittings constitute 'plant' for the purpose of claiming benefits.Judgment Details:The petitioner operates a cinema theatre in a well-constructed building with various fittings like tube lights, furniture, fans, and other fixtures. The income from the theatre is assessed as business income. The petitioner contended that the cinema building and its fixtures should be considered as 'plant' for depreciation and development rebate. However, the Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal did not agree with this classification. The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the Cinematograph Act, 1952, stating that a permanent building is not essential for cinema business, leading to the conclusion that the building is not an integral part of the business asset. While fans, electric installations, furniture, fixtures, fire-extinguisher, and internal telephone were considered as 'plant,' tube lights and show-cases were excluded. The Tribunal's approach was deemed incorrect.In the case of CIT v. Kanodia Warehousing Corporation [1980] 121 ITR 996, the court established the 'functional test' to determine if a building or structure constitutes 'plant.' If the building or structure acts as an apparatus or tool for carrying out business activities, it qualifies as 'plant.' Applying this principle, the court held that the cinema building, along with its fittings and fixtures, should be considered as plant since it plays a crucial role in conducting the cinema business.Therefore, the court answered the question in favor of the assessee, ruling that the cinema building and its fittings do constitute 'plant' for depreciation and development rebate purposes. No costs were awarded in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
