Capital receipts, section 80J opening capital, and plant classification for investment allowance resolved in assessee's favour.

Interest receipts and hire charges arising during project set-up were treated as capital receipts reducing capital cost, following earlier precedent. Work-in-progress was also taken as opening capital for computing relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, again in line with binding authority. The generating station building, being specially designed as an integral part of the generating system and serving a special engineering function, was treated as plant and qualified for investment allowance. On all three questions, the assessee prevailed and the appeal failed in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether interest receipts and hire charges from contractors were capital receipts reducing capital cost, (ii) whether work-in-progress formed part of opening capital for computing relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and (iii) whether the generating station building was a plant entitled to investment allowance.

Issue (i): whether interest receipts and hire charges from contractors were capital receipts reducing capital cost.

Analysis: The first issue was covered by earlier decisions, and the receipts were treated as arising in the course of setting up the project and as capital in character.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether work-in-progress formed part of opening capital for computing relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The second issue was also governed by binding precedent, under which work-in-progress was to be taken as opening capital for the purpose of section 80J relief.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the generating station building was a plant entitled to investment allowance.

Analysis: The generating station building was found to be an integral part of the generating system and was specially constructed to meet the assessee's technical requirements. A building is not ordinarily a plant, but where it is so planned and constructed that it becomes an essential part of the machinery or process, it may qualify as plant. On the facts found, the building could not be separated from the generating machinery and served a special engineering function in the generation process.

Conclusion: The generating station building was held to be a plant and the assessee was entitled to investment allowance.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in entirety and the assessee succeeded on all the questions decided.

Ratio Decidendi: A building specially designed and constructed to serve an assessee's special technical requirements and functioning as an integral part of the machinery or process may be treated as plant for the relevant tax benefit.

---