| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 2123 2005 SLD 2123 (2005) 273 ITR 154 |
Madras High Court
TAX CASE No. 108 OF 2000 (REFERENCE No. 61 OF 2000) JULY 16, 2004
N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND M. THANIKACHALAM, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
TAX CASE No. 108 OF 2000 (REFERENCE No. 61 OF 2000) JULY 16, 2004
N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND M. THANIKACHALAM, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Commissioner of IncomE tax
v.
Kamala Selvaraj
Law:
Section:
Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Depreciation - Extra shift allowance - Assessment year 1983-84 - Assessee, being a doctor, was running nursing home - Claimed extra shift allowance, treating building of nursing home as plant - Assessing Officer disallowed assessee's claim - However, Tribunal allowed assessee's claim - Whether unless on facts, it was established that nursing home was tool or apparatus, for carrying on business activity, for which allowance was claimed, it might not be possible to extend benefit to entire building and if at all, benefit could be extended to portion of building or building as case may be, which could be treated as 'plant' - Held, yes - Whether since Tribunal had not considered what was area available in assessee's nursing home which should be construed as 'plant' and what was remaining area which would come within meaning of ordinary building not attracting definition of plant, depreciation allowance allowed by it was not proper and, therefore, matter was to be restored back to Tribunal to give required finding for purpose of grant of extra shift allowance - Held, yes FACTS The assessee, being a doctor, was running a nursing home. He claimed extra shift allowance, treating the building of the nursing home as a "plant". The Assessing Officer, considering the activities carried on in the building, concluded that the nursing home could not be treated as an industry or a plant, qualifying for extra shift allowance and in this view, he disallowed the claim of the assessee. The Tribunal accepting the case of the assessee, concluded that the assessee was entitled to extra shift allowance. On reference : HELD Unless on the facts, it was established that the nursing home was a tool or an apparatus, for carrying on business activity, for which allowance was claimed, it might not be possible to extend the benefits to the entire building and if at all, the benefit could be extended to a portion of the building or the building as the case may be, which could be treated as a 'plant'. The Tribunal had not considered based on evidence, what was the area available in the assessee's nursing home, which should be construed as 'plant' and…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492