TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1975 (7) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elopment rebate under section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capitalised interest of Rs. 17,97,201 on debentures and bank overdraft utilised for construction of the refinery can be added to the cost of the assets for the purpose of grant of depreciation allowance under section 10(2)(vi)/(via) and development rebate under section 10(2)(vib) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1959-60 ?" At the outset it may be mentioned that, so far as the second question is concerned, the same is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-I, the aforesaid question has been referred to us for our determination. The expression "plant" has been defined in section 10(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It is an inclusive definition and it runs thus: " 'Plant' includes vehicles, books, scientific apparatus and surgical equipment purchased for the purposes of the business, profession or vocation. " Apart from the fact that the definition is an inclusive one, the House of Lords in an earlier English case, Hinton (Inspector of Taxes) v. Maden and Ireland Ltd., took the view that the knives and lasts were "plant" in the case of a company manufacturing shoes. In that case their Lordships accepted the meaning that was given to that word in an earlier case of Yarmouth v. Fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be easily moved if it was desired to alter the size or number of the rooms. The question was whether these partitions were plant within section 279 and section 280 of the English Income Tax Act, 1952, so as to entitle the company to allowances under those sections. The material words in the relevant statute were "where the person carrying on a trade in any year of assessment has incurred expenditure", "on the provision of machinery or plant for the purposes of the trade". It was held that the partitions were "plant" as they were used in the carrying out of the company's trade or business. Relying upon this decision in Jarrold's case, in Taj Mahal Hotel's case the Supreme Court took the view that if the partitions in Jarrold's case could be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, the Tribunal has found that from the cost as well as the materials used it was clear that the fencing was a substantial structure. It has further found that the process units were installed at a cost exceeding Rs. 8 crores and it is these process units that were surrounded by protective fencing and that the nature of construction clearly indicated that there was a considerable degree of durability to the fencing. In view of these facts which have been found by the Tribunal, it will be difficult to resist the claim of the assessee that the fencing surrounding the refinery processing units should be regarded as part of the plant. If the fencing were to be regarded as a separate item and not as a part of the processing unit, still in view ....