COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SRI RAMAKRISHNA ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of law which requires our consideration is as follows :

(2.) DURING the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1984-85, the assessee was carrying on hotel business having both lodging and boarding section. It claimed depreciation on the hotel building by treating it to be a plant which was rejected by the AO, but on appeal the same was granted by the Dy. CIT(A). Aggrieved by the said order, the Department preferred an appeal to the Tribunal, which confirmed the order of the Dy. CIT(A). Under these circumstances, at the instance of the Department, the present reference was made to this Court under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961.

(3.) A similar question as raised herein was considered by a Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Anand Theatres (2000) 160 CTR (SC) 492 : (2000) 244 ITR 192 (SC) (Pr. 66) wherein after considering all the earlier decisions on the point and the relevant statutory provisions it has been expressly held that the building which is used as a hotel or a cinema theatre cannot be given depreciation as plant.