High Court Of Madras
CIT vs. K.G. Arts Centres (P) Ltd.
Sections 32, 43(3)
Asst. Year 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88
R. Jayasimha Babu & Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, JJ.
Tax Cases Nos. 97 to 99 to 1994
24th November, 1998
Counsel Appeared
C.V. Rajan, for the Revenue : P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, for the Assessee
JUDGMENT
R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. :
The assessee’s claim that the theatre building owned by it should be regarded as plant has been accepted by the Tribunal. The Revenue is before us questioning the correctness of the order of the Tribunal. The assessment year are 1985-86 to 1987-88.
2. This Court in CIT vs. N. Sathyanathan & Sons P. Ltd. (2000) 160 CTR (Mad) 269 : (2000) 242 ITR 514 (Mad), (Tax Case No. 949 of 1998), decided on 15th June, 1998, considered the claim of the assessee that the hotel building owned by it should be treated as plant. That claim was negatived. The reasons given therein for reaching that conclusion are equally applicable here. A theatre building is primarily a building in respect of which depreciation can be claimed only in accordance with and at the rates prescribed for buildings and it cannot be treated as plant only on the ground that the assessee carries on business of running a theatre.
The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
[Citation : 243 ITR 280]
