ORDER G.C. Bharuka, J.—The question of law which requires our consideration is as follows: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the building used for the purpose of hotel business was a "plant" for the purpose of depreciation." 2. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee was carrying on hotel business having both lodging and boarding section. It claimed depreciation on the hotel building by treating it to be a plant which was rejected by the assessing officer, but on appeal the same was granted by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the said order, the department preferred an appeal to the Tribunal, which confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Under these circumstances, at the instance of the department, the present reference was made to this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. We have heard Shri, Seshachala, learned counsel appearing for the department, and Shri S.P. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the assessee. 4. A similar question as raised herein was considered by a Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum Vs. M/s. Anand Theatres, AIR 2000 SC 2356 (Pr. 66) wherein after considering all the earlier decisions on the point and the relevant statutory provisions it has been expressly held that the building which is used as a hotel or a cinema theatre cannot be given depreciation as plant. 5. Similarly, a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation, (2001) 247 ITR 268 SC , has held that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Anand Theatres (supra) will be limited to the buildings which are used for the purpose of hotels and cinema theatres and will not always apply otherwise." In this case, the question as to whether the building can be treated as a plant, had arisen in relation to a building specially constructed for generating stations and it was found, as of fact, that it was an integral part of the assessee's generating system. It was for this reason the Supreme Court upheld the contention of the assessee that it was a plant and was accordingly entitled to investment allowance. 6. In the case of CIT Vs. It was for this reason the Supreme Court upheld the contention of the assessee that it was a plant and was accordingly entitled to investment allowance. 6. In the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation (supra) the 3-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court has clarified that where it is found as a fact that a building has been so planned and constructed as to serve assessee's special technical requirements, it will qualify to be treated as a plant for the purpose of investment allowance. In the case before it, the Supreme Court found that there was a finding by the fact-finding authority that the assessee's generating station building was so constructed as to be an integral part of its generating system. Accordingly, it was held that it was a "plant" and entitled to investment allowance. 7. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in favour of the department and against the assessee. Anyhow, there will be no order as to costs.