CIT LUDHIANA V. RAJA MOTEL & HOTALS INDIA P.LT

ITR/9/2000

AI Insights

The case revolves around the dispute concerning the classification of a hotel building as a 'Plant' for the purpose of depreciation under the Income Tax Act, 1961. M/s Raja Motels and Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd., the respondent, claimed depreciation on their hotel building at a rate applicable to plants, which was initially denied by the Assessing Officer but later upheld by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the High Court, referencing a different Supreme Court judgment, reversed this view, aligning with the precedent that buildings do not qualify as plants for depreciation purposes under the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 689584 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Scientific Engineering House (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anand Theatres etc.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH KATOCH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Hotel building; Income tax appellate tribunal; Plant; Scientific Engineering House (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
• Section: 32; 256(2)

Judgement Text

"ITR No. 9 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No. 9 of 2000 Date of Decision: 10.9.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Ludhiana ....Petitioner. Versus M/s Raja Motels and Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the assessee. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) arising out of its order dated 15.7.1993 in ITA No. 620/ASR/87 in respect of assessment year 1981-82:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Hotel Building was a 'Plant' for the purpose of grant of depreciation?” 2. The assessee is running a hotel and claimed depreciation ITR No. 9 of 2000 -2- on the building @ 2.5% applicable to depreciation on plants. It was claimed that the building itself was a plant of the hotel. This was not allowed by the Assessing Officer. The CIT (A) upheld the plea of the assessee relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Scientific Engineering House (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1986] 157 ITR 86 (SC) which has been affirmed by theTribunal. The observations of the Tribunal are as under:- “We have considered the rival submissions. The point in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per the decision of Hon'ble Madras Bench, Calcutta Bench as well as Delhi Bench of the Tribunal as reported in 5 ITD 541, 30 ITD 388 and 25 TTJ 456 (supra). The decision relied on by the Ld. DR in the case of R.C. Chemicals Inds. Vs. CIT (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and has been rightly distinguished by the Ld. CIT (A). The decision of Tribunal referred by Sh. Mehra holding the Hotel Building to be a plant is in accordance with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Scientific Engg. House Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT cited as (1986) 157 ITR 86 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has even held drawings, designs, processing data also as plant.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. None appears for the assessee. ITR No. 9 of 2000 -3- 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Scientific Engineering House (P) Ltd's case relates to drawings, designs and processing data which are different from building. In respect of building, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anand Theatres etc., [2000] 244 ITR 192 (SC) that it was not plant for the purpose of depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. We find this to be so. The matter is covered in favour of the revenue. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the question referred is answered in favour of the revenue. 5. The reference is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 10, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE "