- (1.) THE following questions were referred to the High Court for consideration under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is the cinema theatre a plant entitled to depreciation and extra shift allowance as applicable to a plant ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the cinema building is a tool and an apparatus for carrying on the activity and therefore a plant and is not the above finding, wrong, unreasonable and against law and fact ?"
(2.) THE matter was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court by answering the first question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. THE second question was not answered in view of the fact that it was really consequential to the first question. In deciding the matter the Division Bench had relied upon a Full Bench decision of the High Court in CIT vs. Hotel Luciya (1998) 147 CTR (Ker)(FB) 322 : (1998) 231 ITR 492 (Ker)(FB). An appeal had been preferred from that decision before this Court. That appeal as well as other matters raising the same issue now stand concluded by the decision of this Court reported in CIT vs. Anand THEatres (2000) 160 CTR (SC) 492 : 2000 (5) SCC 393, wherein this Court has held, reversing the view taken by the High Court, that theatres remain premises and are not plants for the purposes of depreciation and extra shift allowance under ss. 32, 43(3) and 33 of the IT Act. In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed and the decision of the High Court is set aside and the questions set out hereinbefore are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.;