C.I.T. ANDHRA PRADESH vs. M/S TAJ MAHAL HOTEL, SECUNDERABAD

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1368/1968Supreme Court[1972] 1 S.C.R. 16812 August 1971Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER C.I.T. ANDHRA PRADESH7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, a registered firm operating hotels, incurred expenditure during the assessment year 1960-61 on installing sanitary and pipeline fittings. The assessee claimed development rebate under Section 10(2)(vi-b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, on these fittings. The Income Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner disallowed the claim. The Appellate Tribunal also rejected the appeal, holding that these fittings did not constitute 'plant'. The High Court, on reference, answered the question in favour of the assessee. The Revenue appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that sanitary and pipeline fittings installed in a hotel constitute 'plant' under Section 10(2)(vi-b) read with Section 10(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court reasoned that the term 'plant' is to be construed in its popular sense, and Section 10(5) explicitly enlarges its meaning by including items like vehicles, books, scientific apparatus, and surgical equipment. The inclusion of books indicated a wide intended meaning. The Court found that such fittings are essential amenities for a hotel, contributing to its business by attracting more custom and allowing for higher rates. Therefore, they were required for the purpose of the hotel business and not merely part of the setting. The Court dismissed the Revenue's argument that the fittings became part of the building, citing Jarrold (Inspector of Taxes) v. John Good & Sons Ltd., where partitions were held to be 'plant' as they were used in carrying out the business. The Court also held that the assessee's classification of the fittings as 'furniture and fittings' for depreciation purposes did not detract from their character as 'plant' for development rebate, as the Rules for depreciation could not override the provisions of the Act. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether sanitary and pipeline fittings installed in a hotel constitute 'plant' within the meaning of Section 10(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, entitling the assessee to development rebate under Section 10(2)(vi-b)? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the fittings were essential for the hotel business and fell under the wide definition of 'plant' as interpreted by courts and indicated by the inclusion of items like books in Section 10(5). They relied on the High Court's decision and cases like Jarrold (Inspector of Taxes) v. John Good & Sons Ltd. Revenue's contention: The Revenue contended that 'plant' should be interpreted in its commercial sense and not given a wide meaning. They argued that these fittings became part of the building and were not 'plant' in the industrial or mechanical sense. They also pointed out that the assessee had claimed depreciation under the head 'furniture and fittings', which carried a higher rate than that applicable to 'plant'. They relied on C.I.T., U.P. v. Indian Turpentine and Rosin Co. Ltd. (though this case was approved by the court, not argued against the assessee).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(1),Section 10(2)(vi),Section 10(2)(vi-b),Section 10(5),Section 66(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

168 C.I.T. ANDHRA PRADESH v. M/S TAJ MAHAL HOTEL, SECUNDERABAD August 12, 1971, [K. s. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Income-tax Act (I I of 1922) s. 10(2) (vi) and (vi-b)-'Plant', meaning of During the assessment year 1960-61, the assessee, a registered firm running hotels, incurred expenditure in installing sanhary and pipe- line fittings in its hotels. On the question whether such fittings in a building run as a hotel fell within the meaning of the word 'plant' in s. 10(2)(vi-b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the assessee was therefore entitled to development rebate under that sub-section, the High Court, in reference, answered in favour of the assessee. Dismissing the appeal to this Court, HELD: (I) Apart from the dictionary or literal meaning of the word 'plant', the context of the provisions of the Act shows that sanitary and pipe line fittings are 'plant' under s. 10(2)(vi-b) read with s. 10(5). [173H; 174A-B] Jn computing the profits and gains of a business under s. 10(1) o the Act allowances by way of depreciation in respect of 'plant' under s. 10(2)(vi) and by way of development rebate in respect of 'plant' under s. 10(2)(vi-b) have to be made. Unde

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10(1)

All 388 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →