Depreciation on Race Course Roads Allowed as Part of Building

The High Court of Karnataka ruled in favor of allowing depreciation on roads within a race course premises, considering them as part of the "building." The court distinguished a Supreme Court decision and cited precedents from Bombay and Madras High Courts supporting this interpretation. Emphasizing consistency among High Court views, the court held that the amendment in Income-tax Rules was a clarification, affirming depreciation eligibility.

---

---

Issues involved: Interpretation of the term "building" for the purpose of allowing depreciation on roads within the race course premises.

Summary:
The High Court of Karnataka addressed the issue of whether depreciation should be allowed on roads within a race course premises. The assessee, a turf club, had incurred expenses on asphalting roads and claimed it as revenue expenditure. The assessing authority disallowed part of the claim as capital expenditure. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the assessment but allowed depreciation on the amount. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, leading to the reference before the High Court.

The Department contended that "building" in the relevant section should be construed as superstructure and not a road. They relied on a Supreme Court decision but the High Court distinguished the case, stating that roads within the compound could be considered as part of the building. The court cited decisions from the Bombay and Madras High Courts supporting this interpretation.

The court noted that several other High Courts had taken a similar view on this matter. The Department referred to an amendment in the Income-tax Rules, but the court opined that the amendment was a clarification in line with existing judicial interpretations. The court emphasized the importance of following a consistent view taken by multiple High Courts.

Ultimately, the court answered the question in the affirmative, stating that depreciation should be allowed on roads within the race course premises. No costs were awarded in this case.

---