CIT v. Anand Theatres

244 ITR 192Supreme Court of India2000#2807 most cited

What is CIT v. Anand Theatres authority for?

The Supreme Court in CIT v. Anand Theatres established that the functional test is decisive for classifying an asset as 'plant' or 'building' for depreciation purposes. It clarified that items like sanitary fittings and electrical installations in a hotel are considered 'plant', not part of the building, for depreciation.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Anand Theatres · Anand Theatres · depreciation · functional test · plant and machinery · building · sanitary fittings · electrical installations · Section 10(29) · depreciation allowance

Also reported as

110 Taxmann 338
Read the full judgment

Judgments citing CIT v. Anand Theatres

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4849/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ndix – 1 under rule 5 of the income tax rules 1962 the building includes roads bridges and converts well, tube wells. The learned departmental representative vehemently relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Anand Theatres 244 ITR 192. The learned CIT DR further relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of 52 taxmann.com 21 in brother but the toll road Co Ltd vs. the assistant Commissioner of income tax. He further relied upon the decision of CIT vs. that my local 82 ITR 44 of the honourable Supreme Court and 243 ITR 81. He further submitted that in Anand the th…

M/S Sirmour Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Sirmour vs. ITO, Nahan

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 80I

…and machinery. He referring to the definition of ‘plant’ given u/s 43(3) of the Act, observed that plant excluded building, furniture and fittings. He also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Anand Theatres’ (2000) 244 ITR 192 (SC) and ‘CIT Vs. Abad Hotels India Pvt Ltd’ (2000) 119 Taxman 429 (SC) and held that building could not be considered as plant and, therefore, the same would not be a part of the substantial expansion as defined in sub section (8) of section 80IC of the Act. He, therefore, denied the benefit of deduction under the provisions of section 80IC of…

M/S Sirmour Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Sirmour vs. DCIT, Parwanoo

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 375/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 80I

…and machinery. He referring to the definition of ‘plant’ given u/s 43(3) of the Act, observed that plant excluded building, furniture and fittings. He also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Anand Theatres’ (2000) 244 ITR 192 (SC) and ‘CIT Vs. Abad Hotels India Pvt Ltd’ (2000) 119 Taxman 429 (SC) and held that building could not be considered as plant and, therefore, the same would not be a part of the substantial expansion as defined in sub section (8) of section 80IC of the Act. He, therefore, denied the benefit of deduction under the provisions of section 80IC of…

M/S Sirmour Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Sirmour vs. DCIT, Parwanoo

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 374/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 80I

…and machinery. He referring to the definition of ‘plant’ given u/s 43(3) of the Act, observed that plant excluded building, furniture and fittings. He also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Anand Theatres’ (2000) 244 ITR 192 (SC) and ‘CIT Vs. Abad Hotels India Pvt Ltd’ (2000) 119 Taxman 429 (SC) and held that building could not be considered as plant and, therefore, the same would not be a part of the substantial expansion as defined in sub section (8) of section 80IC of the Act. He, therefore, denied the benefit of deduction under the provisions of section 80IC of…

Stewart Holl (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 979/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: "ी पी.एम .जगताप, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 139(1)Section 33A

…ction 33AB of the Act and the Scheme and confirming Rs.l,49,82,251/- added to the profit as deemed income u/s 33AB(7) of the Act by the Assessing Officer in applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anand Theatres (244 ITR 192) and thereby holding that the provision of section 33AB(7) is unambiguous. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that section 33AB being a provision for granting incentive to promote the growth and development of tea industry be construed liberally and the restriction on it be construed to adv…

Sh. Gautam R Chadha, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5450/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Navin Chandra, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234B

…ion @ 25%. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the judgment in CIT vs. Express Resorts & Hotels Ltd. (supra) by following the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case cited as CIT vs. Taj Mahal Hotel – (1971) 82 ITR 44 (SC) and Anand Theatres – (2000) 244 ITR 192 held that electrical installations are to be regarded as plant and machinery for the purposes of depreciation in the scheme of section 32 of the Act. So, when electrical installations are treated as plant the depreciation has to be allowed @ 25% as per provisions contained u/s 32 of the Act. So, in these circumstances, ground no.4 is decided in…

Hcl Technologies Bpo Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5622/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Navin Chandra, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234B

…ion @ 25%. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the judgment in CIT vs. Express Resorts & Hotels Ltd. (supra) by following the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case cited as CIT vs. Taj Mahal Hotel – (1971) 82 ITR 44 (SC) and Anand Theatres – (2000) 244 ITR 192 held that electrical installations are to be regarded as plant and machinery for the purposes of depreciation in the scheme of section 32 of the Act. So, when electrical installations are treated as plant the depreciation has to be allowed @ 25% as per provisions contained u/s 32 of the Act. So, in these circumstances, ground no.4 is decided in…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-2 vs. Central Warehousing Corporation

ITA/584/2017HC Delhi01 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 10Section 2(11)Section 260ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 41(1)Section 41(2)

…y nature of the word, it is not a loss or an expenditure or a trading liability. 8. The Court’s attention has been drawn by Mr. Mayank Nagi, the learned counsel for the Assessee, to another decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Anand Theatres (2000) 244 ITR 192 where the Supreme Court has, while explaining the scheme of Section 32 of the Act in the context of whether depreciation is allowable vis-a-vis a building, observed that “the depreciation as a general principle represents the diminution in value of capital asset when applied to the purpose of making profit or gain. The object is to get true…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 855/CHNY/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

…SC) relied on by the appellant will come to its rescue wherein it is decided that if it serves an assessee’s special technical requirement’, it will qualify to be treated as plant. The case law relied on by the AO in the case of CIT vs. Anand Theatres (2000) (244 ITR 192) wherein the cinema theaters were not considered as “plant” was also discussed in the Supreme Court’s above decision. I accordingly direct the A.O to allow it. This issue is decided in favour of the appellant. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Department is on appeal before us. The Ld.DR argued that as per the Appendix-I of Incom…

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Cuddalore vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2140/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

…SC) relied on by the appellant will come to its rescue wherein it is decided that if it serves an assessee’s special technical requirement’, it will qualify to be treated as plant. The case law relied on by the AO in the case of CIT vs. Anand Theatres (2000) (244 ITR 192) wherein the cinema theaters were not considered as “plant” was also discussed in the Supreme Court’s above decision. I accordingly direct the A.O to allow it. This issue is decided in favour of the appellant. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Department is on appeal before us. The Ld.DR argued that as per the Appendix-I of Incom…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2077/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

…SC) relied on by the appellant will come to its rescue wherein it is decided that if it serves an assessee’s special technical requirement’, it will qualify to be treated as plant. The case law relied on by the AO in the case of CIT vs. Anand Theatres (2000) (244 ITR 192) wherein the cinema theaters were not considered as “plant” was also discussed in the Supreme Court’s above decision. I accordingly direct the A.O to allow it. This issue is decided in favour of the appellant. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Department is on appeal before us. The Ld.DR argued that as per the Appendix-I of Incom…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2029/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

…SC) relied on by the appellant will come to its rescue wherein it is decided that if it serves an assessee’s special technical requirement’, it will qualify to be treated as plant. The case law relied on by the AO in the case of CIT vs. Anand Theatres (2000) (244 ITR 192) wherein the cinema theaters were not considered as “plant” was also discussed in the Supreme Court’s above decision. I accordingly direct the A.O to allow it. This issue is decided in favour of the appellant. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Department is on appeal before us. The Ld.DR argued that as per the Appendix-I of Incom…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1983/CHNY/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

…SC) relied on by the appellant will come to its rescue wherein it is decided that if it serves an assessee’s special technical requirement’, it will qualify to be treated as plant. The case law relied on by the AO in the case of CIT vs. Anand Theatres (2000) (244 ITR 192) wherein the cinema theaters were not considered as “plant” was also discussed in the Supreme Court’s above decision. I accordingly direct the A.O to allow it. This issue is decided in favour of the appellant. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Department is on appeal before us. The Ld.DR argued that as per the Appendix-I of Incom…

Sanjay G Vadodaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4419/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Sanjay G. Vadodaria, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 29/B Roop Kamal 426, S.V. 25(3)(4), Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400067 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepv9502A यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Mrs. Zarna P. Chandwani & Mr. Pradeep Chandwani याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Vishwas Mundhe-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

Section 32oSection 42

…of a capital asset, when apply to the purpose. Thus, the term depreciation is to be understood in commercial sense then it can be said that it is a normal wear and tear, which required to be replaced at a point of time in future (CIT vs Anand Theaters (2000) 244 ITR 192 (SC), CIT vs Daudayal Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (282 ITR 132)(Guj.)). The position of law is well settled that the depreciation allowance is a normal 9 Sanjay G. Vadodaria wear and tear, out of use of the asset/vehicle (CIT vs Crown Products 304 ITR 106 (Guj.)). The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Velimalai Rubber Company Ltd. Vs ITO (1999) 240 ITR 618, 623…

Cyfast Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1878/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year:2011-12 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Afl House, Circle-10(3), बनाम/ Lok Bharati Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marol Maroshi Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacu4945K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Sunil Jhunjhunwala राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Anandi Verma-Cit-Dr

Section 50B

…the dictionary in the order. In spelling out the meaning of the words in a section, one must take into consideration the setting in which those terms are used and the purpose that they are intended to serve.” In the case of CIT v. Anand Theaters etc. [(2000) 244 ITR 192 (SC)] it has been held by Their Lordships that dictionary meaning of a word should not be adopted where the context conveys a different meaning. It has been laid down : “In our opinion dictionary meanings, however helpful in understanding the general sense of the words, cannot control where the scheme of the statute 36 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Lt…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, cross objections of the

ITA 4847/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he case of building, it is seen from depreciation schedule that the depreciation was claimed on golf course at Rs.2,42, ,64,813/- as against the admissible depreciation at Rs 1,04,93,770/- It has been held by Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Anand Theatre (244 ITR 192) that building is not a plant and even if it is to be construed as plant only that part of the building housing the auditorium and furniture and fittings found therein should be construed as plant and not the entire building. In this particular case, only sports facilities have been provided : he members. At most the equipment of sports may be co…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, cross objections of the

ITA 3549/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he case of building, it is seen from depreciation schedule that the depreciation was claimed on golf course at Rs.2,42, ,64,813/- as against the admissible depreciation at Rs 1,04,93,770/- It has been held by Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Anand Theatre (244 ITR 192) that building is not a plant and even if it is to be construed as plant only that part of the building housing the auditorium and furniture and fittings found therein should be construed as plant and not the entire building. In this particular case, only sports facilities have been provided : he members. At most the equipment of sports may be co…

Kedia Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Kedia Shares & Stock Acit, Brokers Limited, Circle-4(3), बनाम/ 418, Commerce House, Room No.649, 6Th Floor, Vs. 140, Nagindas Master Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400023 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaack2528E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 32oSection 42

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ए, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" । Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member Assessment Year-2010-11 Kedia Shares & Stock ACIT, Brokers Limited, Circle-4(3), बनाम/ 418, Commerce House, Room No.649, 6th Floor, Vs. 140, Nagindas Master Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400023 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 PAN No.AAACK2528E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Mr. Rishabh Shah Shri M. Murli -DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenu…

Asian Advertising, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee firm in ITA N0

ITA 2349/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2349/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Asian Advertising, Ito – 12(3)(4), बनाम/ 4, Parekh Vora Chambers, Mumbai. V. 66, Nagindas Master Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafa1477D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)
Section 31Section 32Section 37

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “A” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2349/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/s Asian Advertising, ITO – 12(3)(4), बनाम/ 4, Parekh Vora Chambers, Mumbai. v. 66, Nagindas Master Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAAFA1477D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hemant J. Vora Revenue by : Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR) सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 19-01-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronounce…

Anand Transport, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.737/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 147

…e Bombay High Court allowed 100% depreciation. The Ld.counsel has also placed her reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Geetha Hotels (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 254 ITR 649. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Anand Theatres (2000) 244 ITR 192, the Ld.counsel submitted that the 4 I.T.A. No.737/Mds/2014 temporary structure erected by the assessee would fall within the definition of “building”. Therefore, it is entitled for depreciation @ 100%. 6. On the contrary, Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee erected the Jetty for transport of…