COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. KAKATKAR A B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the following question is referred for our opinion :

(2.) THE Tribunal, in this case, following its earlier decision in the case of Santosh Enterprises, remitted the matter to the ITO to redetermine the depreciation admissible to the assessee. Against the order made in Santosh Enterprises' case, reference was made to this Court in I. T. R. C. Nos. 184 to 187 of 1982 (Santosh Enterprises vs. CIT (1993) 200 ITR 353) and, in those cases also, a similar question had arisen for consideration and this Court held that the screening wall and ceiling of the auditorium having been constructed with requisite installations so as to have a proper control of the sound effect and for the efficient screening of the films may be treated as part of "plant" but no other part of the building can be included in the said term. In so far as the furniture, fittings and fixtures consisting of wooden walls including false ceiling and wooden panelling of the walls and the chairs would also come within the purview of "plant" for development rebate. However, the case of the chairs outside the auditorium would be different and they cannot come within the definition of "plant".