https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11840 Furniture used in a hotel could not be treated as "plant" for claiming 100 per cent depreciation because the depreciation schedule separately classifies furniture and plant under distinct heads in Appendix I. The Court rejected the earlier view that hotel furniture may be brought within the expression plant for this purpose and held that depreciation must be claimed according to the specific category assigned in the schedule. The question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and the higher depreciation claim on the furniture items was disallowed. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11840 Furniture used in a hotel could not be treated as "plant" for claiming 100 per cent depreciation because the depreciation schedule separately classifies furniture and plant under distinct heads in Appendix I. The Court rejected the earlier view that hotel furniture may be brought within the expression plant for this purpose and held that depreciation must be claimed according to the specific category assigned in the schedule. The question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and the higher depreciation claim on the furniture items was disallowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11840