2003 (2) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... disallowed this claim on the ground that these items cannot be considered as plant and machinery. - The argument of the appellant is that furniture is under a separate head and plant and machinery are also under a separate head. Furniture cannot come under plant. We agree with the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, we hold that the respondent is not entitled to 100 per cent. de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tribunal, the Tribunal relying on the decision in CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44 (SC), held that the assessee is entitled to 100 per cent. depreciation on the furniture in hotel as such furniture items constitute plant. According to the appellant, the above decision is not correct. Learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice Appendix I rule 5. This is with regard to the dep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X