CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel

3 SCC 550Supreme Court of India1971#2380 most cited

What is CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel authority for?

The definition of 'plant' for income tax purposes includes any apparatus used by a businessman for carrying on their business, excluding stock-in-trade, that is kept for permanent employment. Terms like 'plant' should be construed in their popular sense, as understood by people conversant with the subject matter.

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 1992 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel · Taj Mahal Hotel SC · definition of plant · meaning of plant · income tax plant · apparatus used in business · permanent employment in business · popular sense construction · interpretation of terms · depreciation plant

Also reported as

82 ITR 44

Judgments citing CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES (INDIA) P. LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(1)(2), BANGALURU

Accordingly, the ground is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 915/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm &\Nms Padmavathy S, Am\Ni.T.A. No. 915/Mum/2017\N(Assessment Year: 2011-12)\Nhewlett Packard Financial\Nservices (India) Pvt. Ltd.,\N24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main\Nroad, Adugodi, Bangalore-560030.\Npan: Aabcc5967C\Nappellant)\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\Nacit, Circle-2(1)(2),\Naayakar Bhavan,\Nvs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020.\N:\N:\N:\N:\Nrespondent)\Nshri Percy Pardiwala &\Nmr. Ninad Patade, Ar\Nshri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr\N22.09.2025\N21.10.2025\Norder\Nper Padmavathy S, Am:\Nthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [In Short 'Cit(A)'] Passed Under Section 250 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 25.10.2016 For Assessment Years (Ay)\N2011-12. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:\N(I) Disallowance Of Claim Of Depreciation On \"Hp Indigo Digital Press\Nprinter\" @ 60% - Ground No. 1.1 To 1.7\N(Ii) Treatment Of Ceased Liability As Income U/S 41 - Ground No. 2.1 To\N2.9\N(Iii) Disallowance Of Set Off Of Unabsorbed Depreciation - Ground\Nno. 3.1 To 3.9\N(Iv) Disallowance Of Provision For Tds Certificates & Addition To\Nbook Profits U/S.115Jb - Ground No.

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 41

…act can be verified from invoices submitted by the Appellant\nthrough letter dated 24.08.2016. The contention that this Digital Printing\nPress is a part & parcel of computer is not tenable. Further, the reliance\nplaced in the case of CIT vs. Taj Mahal Hotel 82 ITR 44 (SC) is of no avail to\nthe Appellant rather it goes against the Appellant that the term must be\nconstrued in its popular sense which people conversant with subject matter.\nDefinitely, Printing Press and Digital Press cannot be construed as\n\"Computer\" Further, such Digital Printing Press cannot be presumed to be\nComputer Accessories or Scanne…

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

C.A. No.-002948-002948 - 2023Supreme Court03 Oct 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Section 17Section 17(5)(c)Section 17(5)(d)

…CIT, Andhra Pradesh v. Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad18 wherein this court held that the word “plant” means land, building, machinery, apparatus and fixtures employed in carrying on trade and other industrial business. 17 (2006) 4 SCC 786 18 (1971) 3 SCC 550 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 18 of 91 • Functionality or essentiality tests must be applied to decide what a plant is. Ultimately, a plant is an apparatus used by a businessman for carrying on his business. It does not include his stock in trade, but it does include all goods and property, whether movable or immovabl…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL, vs. MS. HARSHITA MAHESHWARI,

ITA/94/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

…General, Andhra Pradesh130 74. It is submitted that the appellants relied upon the decision in Vodafone for the proposition that control linked to shareholding and the controlling 127 [1971] 3 SCC 550 128 (2014) 4 SCC 87 129 (2011) 5 SCC 128 130 (1981) 2 SCC 577 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 184 of 300 interests is an incident of majority shareholding. The judgment in Vodafone is not applicable to the present case because the definition of control was not considere…

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 308/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

…things have been held to be plant. Dictionaries have defined plant as land, building, fixtures, machinery, implements and tools, and apparatus used in carrying on a mechanical operation or an industrial process. This Court in C.I.T. v. Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44 and Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 86 referred to with approval the observations of Lindley LJ In Yarmouth v. France [1887] 19 QBD 647 that in its ordinary sense plant includes whatever apparatus is used by a businessman for carrying on his business - not his stock-in-trade which he buys or makes for sale; but all goods…

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 345/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

…things have been held to be plant. Dictionaries have defined plant as land, building, fixtures, machinery, implements and tools, and apparatus used in carrying on a mechanical operation or an industrial process. This Court in C.I.T. v. Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44 and Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 86 referred to with approval the observations of Lindley LJ In Yarmouth v. France [1887] 19 QBD 647 that in its ordinary sense plant includes whatever apparatus is used by a businessman for carrying on his business - not his stock-in-trade which he buys or makes for sale; but all goods…

M/S FINGROWTH COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/9/2020HC Rajasthan24 Aug 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

…General, Andhra Pradesh130 74. It is submitted that the appellants relied upon the decision in Vodafone for the proposition that control linked to shareholding and the controlling 127 [1971] 3 SCC 550 128 (2014) 4 SCC 87 129 (2011) 5 SCC 128 130 (1981) 2 SCC 577 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 184 of 300 interests is an incident of majority shareholding. The judgment in Vodafone is not applicable to the present case because the definition of control was not considere…

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2532/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai for Shri K.R. VasudevanFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 37Section 92C

…things have been held to be plant. Dictionaries have defined plant as land, building, fixtures, machinery, implements and tools, and apparatus used in carrying on a mechanical operation or an industrial process. This Court in C.I.T. v. Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44 and Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 86 referred to with approval the observations of Lindley LJ In Yarmouth v. France [1887] 19 QBD 647 that in its ordinary sense plant includes whatever apparatus is used by a businessman for carrying on his business - not his stock-in-trade which he buys or makes for sale; but all goods…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CENTURY ENKA LIMITED

ITA/7/2020HC Calcutta27 Feb 2023

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…General, Andhra Pradesh130 74. It is submitted that the appellants relied upon the decision in Vodafone for the proposition that control linked to shareholding and the controlling 127 [1971] 3 SCC 550 128 (2014) 4 SCC 87 129 (2011) 5 SCC 128 130 (1981) 2 SCC 577 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 184 of 300 interests is an incident of majority shareholding. The judgment in Vodafone is not applicable to the present case because the definition of control was not considere…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S V2 RETAIL LTD.

ITAT/18/2020HC Calcutta28 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

…General, Andhra Pradesh130 74. It is submitted that the appellants relied upon the decision in Vodafone for the proposition that control linked to shareholding and the controlling 127 [1971] 3 SCC 550 128 (2014) 4 SCC 87 129 (2011) 5 SCC 128 130 (1981) 2 SCC 577 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 184 of 300 interests is an incident of majority shareholding. The judgment in Vodafone is not applicable to the present case because the definition of control was not considere…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JAGANNATH BANWARILAL TEXOFABS PVT LTD

ITAT/9/2020HC Calcutta27 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

…General, Andhra Pradesh130 74. It is submitted that the appellants relied upon the decision in Vodafone for the proposition that control linked to shareholding and the controlling 127 [1971] 3 SCC 550 128 (2014) 4 SCC 87 129 (2011) 5 SCC 128 130 (1981) 2 SCC 577 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 184 of 300 interests is an incident of majority shareholding. The judgment in Vodafone is not applicable to the present case because the definition of control was not considere…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J.J.EXPORTERS LTD.

ITAT/5/2020HC Calcutta26 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

…General, Andhra Pradesh130 74. It is submitted that the appellants relied upon the decision in Vodafone for the proposition that control linked to shareholding and the controlling 127 [1971] 3 SCC 550 128 (2014) 4 SCC 87 129 (2011) 5 SCC 128 130 (1981) 2 SCC 577 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 184 of 300 interests is an incident of majority shareholding. The judgment in Vodafone is not applicable to the present case because the definition of control was not considere…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. L D S CITY PROJECTS PVT LTD

ITAT/3/2020HC Calcutta21 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

…General, Andhra Pradesh130 74. It is submitted that the appellants relied upon the decision in Vodafone for the proposition that control linked to shareholding and the controlling 127 [1971] 3 SCC 550 128 (2014) 4 SCC 87 129 (2011) 5 SCC 128 130 (1981) 2 SCC 577 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 184 of 300 interests is an incident of majority shareholding. The judgment in Vodafone is not applicable to the present case because the definition of control was not considere…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TCG LIFESCIENCES LTD.

ITAT/10/2020HC Calcutta08 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…General, Andhra Pradesh130 74. It is submitted that the appellants relied upon the decision in Vodafone for the proposition that control linked to shareholding and the controlling 127 [1971] 3 SCC 550 128 (2014) 4 SCC 87 129 (2011) 5 SCC 128 130 (1981) 2 SCC 577 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 184 of 300 interests is an incident of majority shareholding. The judgment in Vodafone is not applicable to the present case because the definition of control was not considere…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. RUNGTA MINES LTD

ITA/13/2020HC Calcutta08 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…General, Andhra Pradesh130 74. It is submitted that the appellants relied upon the decision in Vodafone for the proposition that control linked to shareholding and the controlling 127 [1971] 3 SCC 550 128 (2014) 4 SCC 87 129 (2011) 5 SCC 128 130 (1981) 2 SCC 577 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 184 of 300 interests is an incident of majority shareholding. The judgment in Vodafone is not applicable to the present case because the definition of control was not considere…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE CALCUTTA TRAMWAYS COMPANY (1978) LTD.

ITAT/20/2020HC Calcutta04 Mar 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…General, Andhra Pradesh130 74. It is submitted that the appellants relied upon the decision in Vodafone for the proposition that control linked to shareholding and the controlling 127 [1971] 3 SCC 550 128 (2014) 4 SCC 87 129 (2011) 5 SCC 128 130 (1981) 2 SCC 577 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 184 of 300 interests is an incident of majority shareholding. The judgment in Vodafone is not applicable to the present case because the definition of control was not considere…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD

ITAT/4/2020HC Calcutta16 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…General, Andhra Pradesh130 74. It is submitted that the appellants relied upon the decision in Vodafone for the proposition that control linked to shareholding and the controlling 127 [1971] 3 SCC 550 128 (2014) 4 SCC 87 129 (2011) 5 SCC 128 130 (1981) 2 SCC 577 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 184 of 300 interests is an incident of majority shareholding. The judgment in Vodafone is not applicable to the present case because the definition of control was not considere…

PRINCIPAL CIT-14, KOLKATA vs. SHRI VISHWANATH GUPTA

ITA/21/2020HC Calcutta07 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…General, Andhra Pradesh130 74. It is submitted that the appellants relied upon the decision in Vodafone for the proposition that control linked to shareholding and the controlling 127 [1971] 3 SCC 550 128 (2014) 4 SCC 87 129 (2011) 5 SCC 128 130 (1981) 2 SCC 577 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 184 of 300 interests is an incident of majority shareholding. The judgment in Vodafone is not applicable to the present case because the definition of control was not considere…

RAJESH JAJODIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 45 KOLKATA AND ORS

ITAT/26/2020HC Calcutta27 Aug 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

…General, Andhra Pradesh130 74. It is submitted that the appellants relied upon the decision in Vodafone for the proposition that control linked to shareholding and the controlling 127 [1971] 3 SCC 550 128 (2014) 4 SCC 87 129 (2011) 5 SCC 128 130 (1981) 2 SCC 577 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 184 of 300 interests is an incident of majority shareholding. The judgment in Vodafone is not applicable to the present case because the definition of control was not considere…

M/S SINGHI AND CO vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIII

ITA/15/2020HC Calcutta27 Apr 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

…General, Andhra Pradesh130 74. It is submitted that the appellants relied upon the decision in Vodafone for the proposition that control linked to shareholding and the controlling 127 [1971] 3 SCC 550 128 (2014) 4 SCC 87 129 (2011) 5 SCC 128 130 (1981) 2 SCC 577 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 184 of 300 interests is an incident of majority shareholding. The judgment in Vodafone is not applicable to the present case because the definition of control was not considere…

TCG LIFE SCIENCES PVT LTD vs. JOINT COMM OF INCOME TAX RANGE59 KOL AND ANR

ITA/26/2020HC Calcutta04 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

…General, Andhra Pradesh130 74. It is submitted that the appellants relied upon the decision in Vodafone for the proposition that control linked to shareholding and the controlling 127 [1971] 3 SCC 550 128 (2014) 4 SCC 87 129 (2011) 5 SCC 128 130 (1981) 2 SCC 577 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 184 of 300 interests is an incident of majority shareholding. The judgment in Vodafone is not applicable to the present case because the definition of control was not considere…

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3

CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel (3 SCC 550) — Cited in 49 Judgments | BharatTax