Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagadeeschandran and Company - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case No. 199 of 1965 (Reference No. 99 of 1965)
Judge
Reported in[1970]75ITR697(Mad)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 10(2)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentJagadeeschandran and Company
Appellant AdvocateV. Balasubrahmanyan and ;J. Jayaraman, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateS. Swaminathan and ;K. Ramagopal, Advs.
Cases ReferredJarrotd v. John Good and Sons Ltd.
Excerpt:
- - john good and sons ltd. ) referred to this definition as one best known and most generally invoked......fittings and water pipe fittings formed part of the building. in regard to fans he thought that development rebate for them was expressly disallowed in the act itself. the appellate assistant commissioner substantially accepted that view. the tribunal, however, held in favour of the assessee on the view that these items could be classified as plant. in its view the mere fact that these items were fitted to a building would not alter their character. hence this reference of the questipn : ' whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to development rebate on light fittings, ceiling and pedestal fans and water pipe fittings in assessment year 1961-62 '2. we are unable to accept the tribunal's view as incorrect. our attention has not been invited.....
Judgment:

Veeraswami, J.

1. Whether the assessee' is entitled to development rabate in respect of light fittings and water pipe fittings is the question in this reference. It relates to the assessment year 1961-62. The assessee is a registered firm during that year and has been running a hotel called Ashok Hotel in the City of Madras. The rebate claimed was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the light fittings and water pipe fittings formed part of the building. In regard to fans he thought that development rebate for them was expressly disallowed in the Act itself. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner substantially accepted that view. The Tribunal, however, held in favour of the assessee on the view that these items could be classified as plant. In its view the mere fact that these items were fitted to a building would not alter their character. Hence this reference of the questipn :

' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to development rebate on light fittings, ceiling and pedestal fans and water pipe fittings in assessment year 1961-62 '

2. We are unable to accept the Tribunal's view as incorrect. Our attention has not been invited to any specific provision in the Act, which excludes ceiling fans and pedestal fans from the purview of Section 10(2)(vib). Nor do we think that merely because the items in respect of which rebate is claimed have been fixed to the building, they would cease to be plant. That word has not been defined in the Act. But we find Lindley L.J. in Yarmouth v. France, [1887] 19 Q.B.D. 647 :

' There is no definition of plant in the Act; but, in its ordinary sense it 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 and chattels, fixed or movable, live or dead, which he keeps for permanent employment in his business.'

3. Jarrotd v. John Good and Sons Ltd., [1963] 1 All E.R. 141, T.C. 681 (C.A.) referred to this definition as one best known and most generally invoked. We ourselves in T.C. Nos. 80, 8t and 129 of 1964 adopted it. The items here in question can in no sense-be classified as office appliances to attract the second proviso to Section 10 (2)(vib). Regarded as plant within the meaning of that clause, these items, are entitled to development rebate.

4. The question is answered against the revenue with costs. Counsel's, fee Rs. 250.


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