HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh v. Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad
Civil Appeal No. 1368 of 1968
[1972] 1 SCR 168 ·
Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 10(2)(vi), 10(2)(vi-b) and 10(5)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two-judge bench; judgment delivered by A. N. Grover, J. · K. S. Hegde, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: 1960-61
01 · Facts of the case
For assessment year 1960-61, the hotel incurred expenditure on sanitary and pipeline fittings and claimed development rebate. The officer, first appellate authority and Tribunal rejected the claim; the Andhra Pradesh High Court answered the reference for the assessee (SCR pp.168-170; PDF pp.1-3).
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The inclusive definition of plant was deliberately wide. Sanitary facilities were essential hotel amenities used to attract customers and earn business profits, not merely the passive setting of the business. A depreciation description in the Rules could not narrow the statutory meaning for development rebate (SCR pp.170-174; PDF pp.3-7).
03 · Judicial decision
The Court held the sanitary and pipeline fittings to be plant within sections 10(2)(vi-b) and 10(5), dismissed Revenue's appeal and awarded costs to the assessee.
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee-hotel under the historical development-rebate provision.
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: asset classification depends on the statutory definition and the asset's functional role in the business, not only its physical attachment to a building. For a current claim, separately test the applicable depreciation schedule, ownership, use and later case law.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete seven-page SCR report read in page-preserving text and every page image inspected.
- Exact catalogue hash and seven-page count verified; every page was read and inspected.
- The report verifies the hotel facts, assessment year, bench and dismissal with costs.
Statutory scope
The holding concerns repealed 1922 Act provisions and a historical development rebate. Current depreciation classification requires separate verification.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-12. No current-law or later-treatment clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.