Skip to content


Shri Meghdoot Hotels (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1985)11ITD694(All.)
AppellantShri Meghdoot Hotels (P.) Ltd.
Respondentincome-tax Officer
Excerpt:
.....it is urged that the assessee is merely a trading concern, and that making various dishes out of food articles did not amount to manufacture or production of an article and that air-conditioning the atmosphere did not mean either production or manufacture of the atmosphere, even though it may be possible to term the atmosphere as a 'thing'. in support of the above, reliance was placed by the learned departmental representative on the following decisionskoshy's (p.) ltd. v. cit [1984] 18 taxman 481 (kar.), cit v.casino (p.) ltd. [1973] 91 itr 289 (ker.) and cit v. buhari sons (p.) ltd. [1983] 144 itr 12 (mad.). it is pointed out to us that in the decision of koshy's (p.) ltd.'s case (supra), their lordships of the hon'ble karnataka high court have considered the decision of idandas's.....
Judgment:
1 to 20. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 21. In ground Nos. 11 to 13, the assessee has raised the question of allowance of investment allowance with regard to the generator installed by it in its hotel, which is for the purpose of air-conditioning the hotel. According to the assessee, it was engaged in a business of manufacturing or producing articles and, therefore, it was entitled to development allowance in terms of Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). According to the assessee, it was producing an article, that is food, and also it was air-conditioning the atmosphere and this amounted to producing a thing as, in the opinion of the learned counsel for the assessee, atmosphere was a thing. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the assessee, it was covered by Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 32A. In support of its stand, the assessee relied on the following decisions : CIT v. Yamuna Cold Storage [1981] 129 ITR 728 (Punj. & Har.), Manias v. Anant Ramchandra Phadhke AIR 1982 SC 127, P.Laxmanrao & Sons v. Addl. Inspector of Factories AIR 1959 AP 142 and CIT v. Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co. Ltd. [1968] 68 ITR 325 (Bom.).

22. On behalf of the revenue, it is urged that the assessee is merely a trading concern, and that making various dishes out of food articles did not amount to manufacture or production of an article and that air-conditioning the atmosphere did not mean either production or manufacture of the atmosphere, even though it may be possible to term the atmosphere as a 'thing'. In support of the above, reliance was placed by the learned departmental representative on the following decisionsKoshy's (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 18 Taxman 481 (Kar.), CIT v.Casino (P.) Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 289 (Ker.) and CIT v. Buhari Sons (P.) Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 12 (Mad.). It is pointed out to us that in the decision of Koshy's (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra), their Lordships of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court have considered the decision of Idandas's case (supra), relied on by the assessee supra.

23. We have given careful consideration to the facts of the present case and the rival submissions. The assessee is running a hotel wherein, apart from providing lodging facilities, it is also providing to its customers various articles of food. The making of various preparations of food from food articles, like flour, dal, vegetable, ghee, etc., does not, in our opinion, amount to the act of manufacturing such food stuff or producing a thing. The air-conditioning of the atmosphere in the hotel for the convenience of the customers also, in our opinion, does not amount to manufacturing or producing a thing, as claimed by the assessee. Reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jamuna Cold Storage (supra) and of that of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Kanodia Cold Storage [1975] 100 ITR 155 is, in our opinion, misplaced. In the aforesaid two cases, their Lordships were dealing with a cold storage plant, where articles are stored and preserved. A hotel is far too different from a cold storage. Here, the atmosphere is controlled for the convenience of the visitors and not for the preservation of articles or things, whereby utility of the said good is added and an act of production, in the economic sense, results. Adding to the comfort of the visitors by having a controlled temperature cannot be equated with preserving food stuff at a controlled temperature. The creation of a controlled temperature in the atmosphere cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as manufacturing or producing a 'thing' or article. The claim of the assessee in terms of Section 32A is, therefore, not sustainable in law. In this view of the matter, we reject the assessee's claim.

25 to 28. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.]


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //