IRC v. Barclay, Curle and Co. Ltd.

76 ITR 62Reported decision1970#9904 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35DDASection 37(1)Section 5

Issues it is cited on

section 32capital expenditureprescribedcompanyindiabusinesspersoninterestdocument

Judgments citing IRC v. Barclay, Curle and Co. Ltd.

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6692/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2014-15 Mumbai International Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Airport Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – Chhatrpati Shivaji 400020. International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) A.Y:2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Vs. Mumbai International Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Airport Ltd., New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, 400020. Chhatrpati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabha Soparkar Virtually Appeared Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand V Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.08.2025 In The Case Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2014–15. The Assessment In The Present Case Was Originally Completed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2017. Since The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Arise Out Of The Same Appellate Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

…therefore submitted that these assets also constitute part of the operational apparatus of the airport and are eligible to be treated as plant and machinery. The assessee also relied upon several judicial precedents including IRC v. Barclay, Curle & Co. Ltd. (76 ITR 62, HL), CIT v. Mazagaon Dock Ltd. (191 ITR 460, Bom), CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao (243 ITR 81, SC) and CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation (247 ITR 268, SC) to contend that structures which perform an operational function in the business activity and satisfy the functional test can be regarded as plant. The assessee further pointed out that the issue wa…

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)

…ry fittings used in bathroom was plant. (3) For a building used for a hotel, specific provision is made granting additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(v) of the Act. (4) Barclay, Curle & Co. case [(1969) 1 WLR 675 : (1969) 1 All ER 732 : (1970) 76 ITR 62 : 1969 SC 30 : 45 TC 221 (HL)] decided by the House of Lords pertains to a dry dockyard which itself was functioning as a plant, that is to say, structure for the plant was constructed so that dry dock can operate. It operated as an essential part in the operations which took place in getting a ship into the dock, holding it securely and th…

ALOK FERRO ALLOYS LTD.,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result ground no 6 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 265/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.265/Rpr/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. M/S.Alok Ferro Alloys Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner- Plot No.458/459, Of Income Tax, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur, Circle-1(1), Raipur. Chhattisgarh-493 221. [Pan: Aacca 0569 P] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.R.B.Doshi, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr.Dr : सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing 08.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2023

For Respondent: Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd. v CIT reported in [1986] 157 ITR, wherein in accordance with the findings emerged from the House of Lords in IRC v. Barclay, Curie & CO. Ltd., reported in [1970] 76 ITR 62 has held as under: 6. Appreciating the matter on record and contentions of counsel it can be observed that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Scientific Engineering House (P) Ltd. case has relied the following functional test as laid by House of Lords in IRC v. Barclay, Curie & Co. Ltd. [1970] 76 ITR 62: " ..In order to decide whether a particular…

EFACEC SWITCHGEAR INDIA PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH EFACEC INDIA PVT. LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 8(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5850/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. R.K.Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaefacec Switchgear India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Efacec C&S Mv Circle 8(1), Components Pvt. Ltd. C.R.Building, I.P.Estate & Now Merged With Efacec India New Delhi -110002 Pvt. Ltd.) 4Th Floor, Rectangle-I, Commercial Complex, D-4 Distt. Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 Pan – Aacce4200H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 32

…the matter on record and contentions of counsel it can be observed that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Scientific Engineering House (P) Ltd. case has relied the following functional test as laid by House of Lords in IRC v. Barclay, Curie & Co. Ltd. [1970] 76 ITR 62 : “..In order to decide whether a particular subject is an ‘apparatus’ it seems obvious that an enquiry has to be made as to what operation it performs. The functional test is, therefore, essential at any rate as a preliminary…” “In other words, the test would be : Does the article fulfil the function of a plant in the assessee’s trading activity?…

M/S. NEEL METAL PRODUCTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3960/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Amarjit Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08

…test as to what operation particular apparatus performs. If it is utilized for the business purpose, then it falls in the category of plant. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “In IRC v. Barclay, Curle and Co. Ltd. (1970) 76 ITR 62 (HL), the House of Lords held that a dry dock, since it fulfilled the function of a plant, must be held to be a plant. Lord Reid considered the part which a dry dock played in the assessee-company's operations and observed (at page 67) 'It seems to me that every part of this dry dock plays an essential part .... The whole dock is, 1 think, the mean…

M/S NEEL METAL PRODUCTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1368/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Amarjit Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08

…test as to what operation particular apparatus performs. If it is utilized for the business purpose, then it falls in the category of plant. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “In IRC v. Barclay, Curle and Co. Ltd. (1970) 76 ITR 62 (HL), the House of Lords held that a dry dock, since it fulfilled the function of a plant, must be held to be a plant. Lord Reid considered the part which a dry dock played in the assessee-company's operations and observed (at page 67) 'It seems to me that every part of this dry dock plays an essential part .... The whole dock is, 1 think, the mean…

DEGUSTIBUS HOSPITALITY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 525/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Sunil A DesaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Janardhanan

…ave gone into the question whether the sanitary fittings used in bath room was plant. (3) For a building used for a hotel, specific provision is made granting additional depreciation under section 32(1 )(v) of the Act. (4) Barclay, Curie and Co.’s case [1970] 76 ITR 62, decided by the House of Lords pertains to a dry dock yard which itself was functioning as a plant that is to say, structure for the plant was constructed so that dry dock can operate. It operated as an essential part in the operations which took place in getting a ship into the dock, holding it securely and then returning it to the river. The dock…

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

STRP/100001/2014HC Karnataka23 Mar 2017

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 63Section 65Section 65(1)

…tive meaning to the word ‘Plant’ as only meaning of machinery which would be useless without proper foundation and fixation attaching it with the earth and making it immoveable asset rather than a moveable property: “ IRC v. Barclay, Curle and Co. Ltd. [1970] 76 ITR 62 (HL). The question that arose for Date of Order: 23.03.2017 STRP Nos.100001, 100002, 100003 of 2017 M/s.J.K. Cement Works, Bagalkot Vs. The State of Karnataka 36 / 39 consideration was whether a dry dock could be construed as plant for the purposes of the trade of the company within section 279(1) of the English Act. In that case, the dry dock ha…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

ITA/100003/2014HC Karnataka20 Feb 2017

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 63Section 65Section 65(1)

…tive meaning to the word ‘Plant’ as only meaning of machinery which would be useless without proper foundation and fixation attaching it with the earth and making it immoveable asset rather than a moveable property: “ IRC v. Barclay, Curle and Co. Ltd. [1970] 76 ITR 62 (HL). The question that arose for Date of Order: 23.03.2017 STRP Nos.100001, 100002, 100003 of 2017 M/s.J.K. Cement Works, Bagalkot Vs. The State of Karnataka 36 / 39 consideration was whether a dry dock could be construed as plant for the purposes of the trade of the company within section 279(1) of the English Act. In that case, the dry dock ha…

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/100001/2014HC Karnataka16 Dec 2015

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

Section 63Section 65Section 65(1)

…tive meaning to the word ‘Plant’ as only meaning of machinery which would be useless without proper foundation and fixation attaching it with the earth and making it immoveable asset rather than a moveable property: “ IRC v. Barclay, Curle and Co. Ltd. [1970] 76 ITR 62 (HL). The question that arose for Date of Order: 23.03.2017 STRP Nos.100001, 100002, 100003 of 2017 M/s.J.K. Cement Works, Bagalkot Vs. The State of Karnataka 36 / 39 consideration was whether a dry dock could be construed as plant for the purposes of the trade of the company within section 279(1) of the English Act. In that case, the dry dock ha…

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-008568-008569 - 2001Supreme Court05 Aug 2005
For Respondent: M/s. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd
Section 28(1)

…http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 17 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 8568-8569 of 2001 PETITIONER: Commissioner of Customs (General), N. Delhi RESPONDENT: M/s. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/08/2005 BENCH: Ruma Pal,Arijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 8565-8567 OF 2001 Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo) & Others \005. Appellants Versus M/s Pearl Engineering Polymers Ltd. & Ors.…

IRC v. Barclay, Curle and Co. Ltd. (76 ITR 62) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax