1971 (8) TMI 2 - SC - Income Tax

Hotel sanitary fittings and pipe-line fittings qualify as 'plant' under section 10(2)(vib) for development rebate

Commissioner of Income-Tax, AP Versus Taj Mahal Hotel

The SC held that sanitary fittings and pipe-line fittings in a hotel constitute 'plant' under section 10(2)(vib) for development rebate purposes. The ... Expenditure incurred in installing sanitary fittings and for pipe-line fittings in a hotel building - meaning of the word 'plant' in section 10(2)(vib) of the Act - whether it be for claiming depreciation under section 10(2)(vi) or for development rebate under section 10(2)(vib) - HELD THAT:- In the present case, section 10(5) enlarges the definition of the word 'plant' by including in it the words which have already been mentioned before. The very fact that even books have been included shows that the meaning intended to be given to 'plant' is wide. The word 'includes' is often used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute. When it is so used, these words and phrases must be construed as comprehending not only such things as they signify according to their nature and import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. The word 'include' is also susecptible of other constructions which it is unnecessary to go into. It cannot be denied that the business of a hotelier is carried on by adapting a building or premises in a suitable way to be used as a residential hotel where visitors come and stay and where there is arrangement for meals and other amenities are provided for their comfort and convenience. To have sanitary fittings, etc., in a bath room is one of the essential amenities or conveniences which are normally provided in any good hotel, in the present times. If the partitions in Jarrold's case could be treated as having been used for the purpose of the business of the trader, it is incomprehensible how sanitary fittings can be said to have no connection with the business of the hotelier. He can reasonably expect to get more custom and earn larger profit by charging higher rates for the use of rooms if the bath rooms have sanitary fittings and similar amenities. We are unable to see how the sanitary fittings in the bath rooms in a hotel will not be 'plant' within section 10(2)(vib) read with section 10(2)(5) when it is quite clear that the intention of the legislature was to give it a wide meaning and that is why articles like books and surgical instruments were expressly included in the definition of 'plant'. In decided cases, the High Courts have rightly understood the meaning of the term 'plant' in a wide sense., See Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indian Turpentine and Rosin Co. Ltd.- [1969 (10) TMI 4 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. Thus, looking to the provisions of the Act, we are satisfied that the assets in question were required by the nature of the hotel business which the assessee was carrying on. They were not merely a part of the setting in which hotel business was being carried on. The High Court was right in not accepting the reasoning of the Tribunal based on the rates relating to depreciation under section 10(2)(vi) and the assessee having claimed that the sanitary and pipe-line fittings fell within the, meaning of 'furniture and fittings' in rule 8(2) of the Rules. It has been rightly observed that the Rules were meant only for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and they could not take away what wag conferred by the Act or whittle down its effect. If the assessee had claimed higher depreciation allowance that would not detract from the meaning of the word 'plant' in clause (vib) of section 10(2). Appeal dismissed. Issues:Interpretation of the term 'plant' under section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 in the context of sanitary and pipe-line fittings installed in a hotel building.Detailed Analysis:The judgment involved an appeal by certificate from the Andhra Pradesh High Court regarding the interpretation of the term 'plant' under section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The respondent, a registered firm operating a hotel, claimed development rebate on expenditures for sanitary and pipe-line fittings. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, which was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. The primary issue was whether these fittings constituted 'plant' for the purpose of claiming development rebate.The High Court answered the question in favor of the assessee, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The main argument for the appellant was that the word 'plant' should be interpreted narrowly, based on common commercial understanding, and that development rebate cannot be claimed for items integrated into the building. The appellant also highlighted the difference in depreciation rates for furniture and fittings versus plant assets.The Supreme Court analyzed the definition of 'plant' under section 10(5) of the Act, which includes various items like vehicles, books, and scientific apparatus. The Court emphasized that when the definition of a word is not provided, it should be construed in its popular sense. Referring to precedents, the Court discussed cases where assets like partitions were considered 'plant' based on their essential role in the business operation.The Court reasoned that in the context of a hotel business, sanitary fittings are essential amenities that directly contribute to attracting customers and increasing profits. The Court rejected the appellant's argument regarding depreciation rates and emphasized that the intention of the legislature was to give 'plant' a broad meaning. The Court concluded that the assets in question were necessary for the hotel business and upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal with costs.In summary, the Supreme Court affirmed that sanitary and pipe-line fittings in a hotel building can be considered 'plant' under section 10(2)(vib) of the Act, entitling the assessee to claim development rebate. The judgment clarified the broad interpretation of the term 'plant' in the context of business operations, emphasizing the essential role of such assets in facilitating business activities and enhancing profitability.