RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
K.C.Agarwal, V.K.Singhal, JJ.
Commissioner of Income - Appellant
Versus
R. G. Ispat Ltd. - Respondent
D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 29 of 1984.
Decided On : 9-12-1993
INCOME TAX - Plant - Reinforced concrete structure - Whether constitutes 'plant' within the meaning of section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee, a manufacturer of grinding media balls and ingots, claimed depreciation on a massive reinforced concrete structure specially designed to take up loads. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, holding that the structure was not 'plant'. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the claim, holding that the structure was 'plant' within the meaning of section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the structure was 'plant' within the meaning of section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court observed that the structure was specially designed to make the plant operative and that it could not have functioned in the absence of the structure. The Court further observed that the structure was not a mere structure for the location of the plant, but rather a structure that made the plant operative and workable.
Issues: Whether the massive reinforced concrete structure specially designed to take up loads constituted 'plant' within the meaning of section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the structure was 'plant' within the meaning of section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because it was specially designed to make the plant operative and it could not have functioned in the absence of the structure. The Court further observed that the structure was not a mere structure for the location of the plant, but rather a structure that made the plant operative and workable.
Final Decision: The reference was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the massive reinforced concrete structure, especially designed to take up loads, constituted 'plant' within the meaning of section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961." ?
" (1) The definition of 'plant' in section 43(3) should be given a wide meaning as it is an inclusive definition ;
(2) All buildings are not 'plant' despite the dictionary meaning which includes buildings ; but a building or structure is not per se to be excluded from the ambit of the expression 'plant' ;
(3) If the concrete construction or building is used as the premises or setting in which the business is carried on in contradistinction to the fulfilling of the function of plant, the building or construction or part thereof is not considered plant. The true test is whether it is the means of 'carrying on the business' or the location for so doing ;
(4) In order for a building or concrete structure to qualify for inclusion in the term 'plant', it must be established that it is impossible for the equipment to function without the particular type of structure ; and
(5) The particular apparatus or item must be used for carrying on the assessee's business and must not be his stock-in-trade. The matter has to be considered in the context of the particular business of the assessee, e.g., books are a lawyer's plant but a bookseller's stock-in-trade."
" ' Plant ' includes ships, vehicles, books, scientific apparatus and surgical equipment used for the purposes of the business or profession."
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.