<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (9) TMI 68 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23130</link>
    <description>HC applied the functional test under section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to determine whether a cinema building with tube lights and fittings qualifies as &quot;plant.&quot; It held that where a building constitutes an apparatus or tool through which the business is carried on, it is &quot;plant,&quot; but if it is merely a place where business is conducted, it is not. On facts, the cinema building, together with its fittings and fixtures, was integral to the assessee&#039;s cinema business and therefore constituted &quot;plant.&quot; The question was answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, thereby entitling the assessee to the claimed development rebate and depreciation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2025 17:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62129" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (9) TMI 68 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23130</link>
      <description>HC applied the functional test under section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to determine whether a cinema building with tube lights and fittings qualifies as &quot;plant.&quot; It held that where a building constitutes an apparatus or tool through which the business is carried on, it is &quot;plant,&quot; but if it is merely a place where business is conducted, it is not. On facts, the cinema building, together with its fittings and fixtures, was integral to the assessee&#039;s cinema business and therefore constituted &quot;plant.&quot; The question was answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, thereby entitling the assessee to the claimed development rebate and depreciation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23130</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>