https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22194 The Calcutta HC treated the reference as academic and declined to answer whether an incomplete railway siding under construction was a "plant" under section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal had also held, in the alternative, that the siding could be treated as a "building" within section 32(1)(iii), and that alternative finding was not challenged by the Revenue. As that unchallenged conclusion would remain effective regardless of the answer on the plant issue, the Court refrained from deciding the referred question. en-us Tue, 09 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:34:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22194 The Calcutta HC treated the reference as academic and declined to answer whether an incomplete railway siding under construction was a "plant" under section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal had also held, in the alternative, that the siding could be treated as a "building" within section 32(1)(iii), and that alternative finding was not challenged by the Revenue. As that unchallenged conclusion would remain effective regardless of the answer on the plant issue, the Court refrained from deciding the referred question. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 09 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22194