Initial depreciation on bus body replacement denied because a detachable vehicle part is not itself new plant.

Initial depreciation under the Income-tax Act, 1922 was confined to new machinery or plant actually installed, and the statutory inclusion of vehicles within "plant" did not extend to a detachable part of a vehicle. A bus body was not treated as a self-contained unit of plant because it had no practical utility apart from the vehicle itself, even if it increased seating capacity. The replacement body therefore did not qualify as new plant, and the assessee was not entitled to initial depreciation on the expenditure.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cost of replacing the body of a passenger bus with a new body qualified for initial depreciation as new plant under section 10(2)(vi), read with section 10(5), of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: Initial depreciation was allowable only where new machinery or plant had been installed. Although vehicles were included in the definition of plant, that did not extend to a mere part of a vehicle. A bus body was not a self-contained unit and had no practical utility apart from the vehicle itself. The expression "plant being new" could not be read as covering something partly new and partly not new, and the statutory context did not support treating a bus body as plant merely because it increased seating capacity. Authorities dealing with engines as machinery were distinguished, and the English decision relied upon did not assist the assessee.

Conclusion: The replacement body was not plant within the meaning of the provision, and the assessee was not entitled to initial depreciation on the expenditure.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of initial depreciation, the statutory inclusion of vehicles within "plant" does not extend to a detachable part of a vehicle which is not itself a complete and self-contained unit of plant.

---