Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. The view of the Tribunal which is sought to be assailed by the Revenue, is consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of East India Hotels Ltd. v. CIT, and the question referred to us regarding the correctness of the Tribunal's view that the assessee is entitled to the grant of extra shift allowance on plant and machinery installed in the restaurant section of the assessee's hotel, is therefore required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessment year is 1982-83. The Supreme Court in that decision has held that: "Depreciation is allowed on machinery and plant and not with reference to the nature or character of the activity carried on in the premises where the said machinery is installed." That observation was made with reference to Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which sets out the rates at which depreciation is admissible in sub-items (iii) and (iv) of item III which deals with extra depreciation allowance for approved hotels and extra shift depreciation allowance respectively. The court also referred to the definition of "shift" in the Factories Act, and observed (at page 5), "A reading of the definition shows that the concept of shift is with reference to the workers and not with reference to the concern or establishment. In a hotel which works twenty-four hours a day, there are bound to be two or more sets of workers working during different periods of the day. If so, the concept of shift cannot be said to be inapplicable or irrelevant in the case of a hotel. We are, therefore, of the opinion that a hotel is also entitled to claim extra shift depreciation allowance on the machinery and plant under sub-item (iv) of item III." Counsel for the Revenue, however, sought to contend that the hotel is not entitled to such allowance on the ground that the building in which the hotel is run cannot be regarded as plant. The depreciation here is not being claimed on the building, but on the machinery installed in the restaurant and, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, the eligibility for this allowance does not depend upon the nature of the activity, but on the fact that the machinery has been installed and is being used in connection with the business of the assessee. The question referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.