JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by V. Kameswar Rao J.-These three appeals involve common substantial question of law, which is reproduced as under: "Whether Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that Moradabad Bypass Toll Road (Highway) was building and not plant?" appeals relate to assessment years 2007-08 (I. T. A. No. 51 of 2013), 2003-04 (I. T. A. No. 65 of 2014) and 2004-05 (I. T. A. No. 81 of 2014). I. T. A. No. 51 of 2013 appellant is 100 per cent. subsidiary of National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and was formed with sole object of constructing highway and bypass at Moradabad, covering total stretch of 18.2 kms, which was ultimately executed on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis. appellant filed income-tax return in electronic form declaring loss of Rs. 10,02,63,570 for assessment year 2007-08. case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), was issued to appellant. Assessing Officer held that assessee could claim depreciation at 10 per cent. on roads and not at 25 per cent., as claimed by appellant-assessee, and, accordingly, allowed amount of depreciation as Rs. 3,70,92,664 calculated on amount of written down value. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partially upheld order in so far as aforesaid aspect is concerned. On further appeal, Tribunal confirmed order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). I. T. A. No. 65 of 2014 appellant on November 27, 2003, filed income-tax return declaring loss of Rs. 25,94,56,570. case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) was issued to appellant on October 15, 2004. Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated July 28, 2005, allowed depreciation on toll road at 10 per cent., instead of 25 per cent. as claimed by appellant assessee. balance 15 per cent. was directed to be added to income of appellant-assessee. appellant-assessee has filed appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who in his order dated October 11, 2006, held that road cannot be said to be "plant" but would fall under head "building" for purpose of allowing depreciation and, accordingly, rejected appeal. On further appeal, Tribunal upheld order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), inter alia, stating that depreciation with respect to roads had to be allowed only at 10 per cent. I. T. A. No. 81 of 2014 appellant on October 27, 2004, filed income-tax return declaring loss of Rs. 20,83,84,640. Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated November 30, 2005, held that depreciation on toll road should be allowed at 10 per cent. and not at 25 per cent. as claimed by appellant-assessee. appellant-assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who in his order dated January 8, 2007, held that road cannot be said to be "plant" and was "building" for purpose of allowing depreciation and, accordingly, rejected appeal. On further appeal, Tribunal upheld order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), inter alia, observing that depreciation with respect to roads had to be allowed only at 10 per cent. Mr. Ramesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for appellant-assessee, would submit that Tribunal has erred in not appreciating facts in proper perspective. According to him, appellant-assessee had rightly claimed depreciation on toll road at 25 per cent. He would state that appellant- assessee was constituted for sole object of construction of highway, toll road and was authorised to collect toll tax from vehicles passing on toll road, which is not "building", which being road by itself is not part of "building" or within confines of "building" or approach road to "building". He would state that toll road is structure which constitutes apparatus or tool by means of which business activities are carried on and it would amount to "plant". He would rely upon following judgments in support of his contentions: (a) Indore Municipal Corporation v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 803 (SC); (b) Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 86 (SC); (c) Nowrangroy Metals Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint CIT (Asstt.) [2003] 262 ITR 231 (Gauhati); (d) CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation [2001] 247 ITR 268 (SC); (e) CIT v. Kamala Selvaraj [2005] 273 ITR 154 (Mad); (f) CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1992] 196 ITR 149 (SC); (g) Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 126 ITD 279 (ITAT, Mumbai); (h) Tamil Nadu Road Development Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2009] 120 ITD 20 (ITAT, Chennai); [2010] 4 ITR (Trib) 403 (Chennai); (i) S. K. Tulsi and Sons v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 685 (All); (j) R. C. Chemical Industries v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 330 (Delhi); (k) Deputy CIT v. Astra-IDL Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 564 (Karn); (l) Asst. CIT v. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. (I. T. A. No. 6841/ Mum/2011 (ITAT, Mumbai)); (m) CIT v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. [2013] 213 Taxman 333 (All); and (n) CIT v. Anand Theatres [2000] 244 ITR 192 (SC). On other hand, Mr. Balbir Singh, learned counsel for respondent- Revenue, would support order of authorities inasmuch as "toll road" cannot be construed as "plant" as sought to be contended by learned counsel for appellant. He would refer to "Note" under Table to Appendix 1 to Rules, which relates to rate at which depreciation is admissible, wherein "buildings" have been defined/referred to include roads, bridges, culverts, wells and tubewells, to contend that road being "building" for purpose of rate of depreciation, cannot be held "plant". He has also drawn our attention to clause (3) of section 43 under which certain terms have been defined relevant to income from profits and gains of business or profession, wherein term "plant" has been defined in following manner: "'Plant' includes ships, vehicles, books, scientific apparatus and surgical equipment used for purposes of business or profession but does not include tea bushes or livestock or buildings or furniture and fittings." (The underlined portion was inserted with effect from April 1, 2004). According to him, reading of definition of "plant" and "building" as given in clause (3) of section 43 and in Note in Appendix 1 to Income-tax Rules, it is clear that road is not "plant". Having heard learned counsel for parties, only question which arises for consideration is whether toll road can be said to be "plant" so as to entitle assessee higher rate of depreciation. Before we deal with respective submissions of counsel for parties, we refer to some of relevant provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" in short) and Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules" in short). Chapter IV of Act deals with computation of total income. Sections 28 to section 44DB deal with profits and gains of business or profession. Section 32 deals with depreciation. Section 32(1)(i) refers to depreciation with regard to buildings, plant, etc., and such depreciation shall be allowed, if asset is used for purpose of business. Rules framed in exercise of power conferred by section 295 of Act, rule 15 of Part A, rule 11 of Part B, rule 9 of Part C of Fourth Schedule, stipulates through rule 5(1) that depreciation of any block of assets shall be calculated at percentage specified in second column to Table in Appendix I to Rules. Amendment was effected to Appendix I from assessment year 2006-07. We note that pre-amended Appendix I was applicable for assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06. By way of amendment to Appendix I made effective from year 2006-07, depreciation allowance was reduced to 15 per cent. with regard to "plant" and "machinery" as against 25 per cent. for assessment years 2003-04 to 2005- 06. In so far as "buildings" other than those used mainly for residential purposes and not covered by sub-items 1 and 3 of Part dealing with tangible assets remained as 10 per cent. One more provision which is of relevance is section 43 of Act, wherein term "plant" has been defined. same has been reproduced above. Part of Appendix I which relates to tangible assets refers to "buildings" also. types of buildings contemplated are as under: (1) Buildings which are used mainly for residential purposes except hotels and boarding houses. (2) Buildings other than those used mainly for residential purposes and not covered by sub-items (1) above and (3) below. (3) Buildings acquired on or after 1st day of September, 2002, for installing machinery and plant forming part of water supply project or water treatment system and which is put to use for purpose of business of providing infrastructure facilities under clause (i) of sub-section (4) of section 80- IA. (4) Purely temporary erections such as wooden structures. Note 1 below table stipulates "buildings" include roads, bridges, culverts, wells, and tubewells. (emphasis supplied) It is settled law that depreciation generally speaking is allowance for diminution in value due to wear and tear of capital asset employed by assessee in his business. Section 32 of Act provides for depreciation of capital assets in respect of machinery, plant or furniture, etc. It does not include roads per se. issue whether roads would be included within meaning of "buildings" had come up for interpretation before Supreme Court in Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra). Supreme Court in that case was considering facts wherein roads laid within factory premises were links or provided approach to "buildings" as necessary adjuncts to factory building to carry on business activity of assessee, held that "roads" would be "buildings" within meaning of section 32 of Act. It was submission of learned counsel for appellant that judgment of Supreme Court in Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra) was peculiar to facts of that case wherein Supreme Court was concerned with roads built in factory premises. According to him, case of independent roads outside such premises has not been looked in detail. It is true that Supreme Court in Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra) was concerned with roads within factory premises and not roads in general like one with which we are concerned in this case. However, it is noticeable that "roads" were treated and regarded as "buildings", in given fact situation. We may note here that Supreme Court in Indore Municipal Corporation (supra) by distinguishing Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra) has held that roads by themselves would not constitute "buildings". Allahabad High Court also in Noida Toll Bridge (supra) wherein issue primarily was whether road in isolation can be considered as "building" for purpose of granting depreciation. High Court, after referring extensively judgment of Supreme Court in Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra) and also Appendix I under rule 5 of Rules, held that assessee-company is entitled to depreciation which was disallowed by Assessing Officer. depreciation was allowed on road per se, i.e., toll road but at rate prescribed and applicable to head "Building". On careful consideration of aforesaid position of law, it is noted that perusal of Note in Appendix I as existed during relevant assessment year so also clause (3) of section 43, it is clear that roads referred to are roads per se without any qualification attached therewith. Had it been road adjunct to building/factory, rule-making authority would have said so or suggested so in Note (1) itself. Thus, all roads whether adjunct and within factory, or toll road, would get covered under said heading. There is no dispute, for toll road operator, road is asset used for business purposes and can claim depreciation as "building". Even otherwise, respondent-Revenue does not dispute that appellant-assessee is entitled to depreciation on toll road as "building". Rightly so, as "buildings" include "roads". On other hand, in terms of section 43(3), "plant" does not include "buildings". What follows is "plant" does not include "road". It must be held so as legislative intent was to include "roads" as "buildings" and not as "plant". That being intent of Legislature, it must be held that "road" is "building" and cannot be construed or held as "plant" in any circumstance, even if tests laid down to decide what is "plant" in various judgments are fulfilled. Otherwise anomalous situation would arise when even though "road" is "building" which is not "plant", still appellant is calling upon this court to hold "road" is "plant". In other words, "building" is not "plant" and to hold to contrary is being against legislative intent. special provision, will override and have pre-eminence, over more general provision. "Road", by specific stipulation would necessary allowed depreciation at rates applicable to "building" and cannot be treated as "plant". This is plain meaning which must be given effect. Further, inconsistency and repugnancy is to be avoided. It would be incongruous to hold that "roads" are "buildings" but under general definition, it would satisfy test of being "plant", then would be entitled to depreciation as "plant", in spite of being covered under heading "building". Supreme Court in CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [2014] 362 ITR 673 (SC); [2014] 6 SCC 444 has, while considering issue regarding section 158BD which relates to "undisclosed income", has reiterated that when words of statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, legislative intent must be given effect to, without any hypothetical construction, so as to rewrite provision. relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder (page 684 of 362 ITR): "Section 158BD of Act provides for'undisclosed income' of any other person. Before we proceed to explain said provision, we intend to remind ourselves of first or basic principles of interpretation of fiscal legislation. It is time and again reiterated that courts, while interpreting provisions of fiscal legislation should neither add nor subtract word from provisions of instant meaning of sections. It may be mentioned that foremost principle of interpretation of fiscal statutes in every system of interpretation is rule of strict interpretation which provides that where words of statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to principles of interpretation other than literal rule." We are conscious of fact that definition of term "plant" excluding "building" inserted with effect from April 1, 2004. One of appeals in batch pertains to assessment year 2003-04. It can be said that said amendment in definition of "plant" would not be applicable to assessment year 2003-04. We are of view that same would not make any difference as in terms of "Note" under Table in Appendix I of Rules. "Road" has been included to be "building" for purpose of depreciation and said position was in vogue much before assessment years with which we are concerned. amendment of 2004 was reiteration/clarification of position, existing in section 32(1)(i) of Act wherein "buildings" and "plant" have been separately referred to, so also in Explanation 3(a) of said section. In other words, it was intent of Legislature to construe "buildings" and "plant" separately or not to construe "buildings" as "plant" and vice versa. Further, object of prescribing lower rate of depreciation in case of "buildings" as compared to "plant" as they have higher durability. On this ground also, "road" cannot be construed as "plant". Even assuming that it is for first time clarified/prescribed that "plant" does not include "buildings" with effect from April 1, 2004, in cases earlier to it, "building" (road in case) can still be construed as "plant", if it satisfies functional test as propounded in various judgments and which is submission of Mr. Singh that road is tool/ apparatus in business of assessee and must be construed as "plant". We note that word "plant" as defined by section 43(3) as including ships, vehicles, books, scientific apparatus and surgical equipment. Supreme Court in Scientific Engineering House (supra) has held that "plant" would include any article or object fixed or moving, live or dead used by businessman for carrying on his business and it is not necessarily confined to apparatus which is used for mechanical operations or processes or is employed in mechanical or industrial business. According to court, in order to qualify as "plant", article must have some degree of durability, as for instance in Hinton (Inspector of Taxes) v. Maden and Ireland Ltd. [1960] 39 ITR 357 (HL), knives and lasts having average life of three years used in manufacturing shoes were held to be "plant". court also referred to CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44 (SC). respondent therein ran hotel and had installed sanitary and pipeline fittings in respect whereof it claimed development rebate and question was whether sanitary and pipeline fittings installed fell within definition of "plant" given in section 10(5) of 1922 Act which was similar to definition given in section 43(3) of 1961 Act. Supreme Court approved and applied definition of "plant" given by Lindley L. J. in Yarmouth v. France [1887] 19 QBD 647, as expounded in Jarrold (Inspector of Taxes) v. John Good and Sons Ltd. [1962] 40 TC 681 (CA), to hold that sanitary and pipeline fittings fell within definition of "plant". Supreme Court observed that House of Lords had held dry dock fulfilled function of "plant", posed itself question, does article fulfil function of "plant" in assessee's trading activity? Is it tool of his trade with which he carries on his business. If answer is in affirmative, it will be "plant". Applying aforesaid test to drawings, designs, charts, plans, processing data and other literature comprised in "documentation service" as specified in clause 3 of agreement, Supreme Court held that it will be difficult to resist conclusion that these documents as constituting book would fall within definition of "plant". It cannot be disputed that these documents regarded collectively would have to be treated as "book", for, dictionary meaning of that word is nothing but "a number of sheets of paper, parchment, etc., with writing or printing on them, fastened together along one edge, usually between protective covers; literary or scientific work, anthology, etc., distinguished by length and form from magazine, tract, etc." (vide Webster's New World Dictionary). Supreme Court further held that from its physical form, question was whether these documents satisfy functional test indicated above. Obviously, purpose of rendering such documentation service by supplying these documents to assessee was to enable it to undertake its trading activity of manufacturing theodolites and microscopes and there could be no doubt that these documents had vital function to perform in manufacture of these instruments; in fact it was with aid of these complete and up-to-date sets of documents that assessee was able to commence its manufacturing activity and these documents really formed basis of business of manufacturing instruments in question. True, by themselves, these documents did not perform any mechanical operations or processes but that cannot militate against their being "plant" since they were in sense that basic tools of assessee's trade having fairly enduring utility, though owning to technological advances, they might or would in course of time become obsolete. Supreme Court, therefore, clearly of view that capital asset acquired by assessee, namely, technical know-how in shape of drawings, designs, charts, plans, processing data and other literature falls within definition of "plant" and is, therefore, depreciable asset. Supreme Court in Anand Theatres (supra) considered question whether "building" which was used as hotel or cinema theatre could be considered to be apparatus or tool for running business so that it could be termed as "plant" and depreciation could be allowed accordingly or whether it remains "building" wherein either hotel business or business for cinema could be conducted? Supreme Court after considering various judgments held that "building" used for running hotel or carrying on cinema theatre cannot be held to be "plant", inter alia, for following reasons: (a) scheme of section 32, as discussed above, clearly envisages separate depreciation for building, machinery and plant, furniture and fittings, etc. word "plant" is given inclusive meaning under section 43(3) which nowhere includes buildings. rules prescribing rate of depreciation specifically provide grant of depreciation on buildings, furniture and fittings machinery and plant and ships. Machinery and plant include cinematograph films and other items and building is further given meaning to include roads, bridges, culverts, wells and tubewells. (b) In case of Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44 (SC), this court has observed that business of hotelier is carried on by adapting building or premises in suitable way, meaning thereby building for hotel is not apparatus or adjunct for running of hotel. court did not proceed to hold that building in which hotel was run was itself plant, otherwise court would not have gone into question whether sanitary fittings used in bathroom was plant. (c) To differentiate building for grant of additional depreciation by holding it to be "plant" in one case where building is specially designed and constructed with some special features to attract customers and building not so constructed but used for same purpose, namely, as hotel or theatre would be unreasonable. In CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao [2000] 243 ITR 81 (SC), Supreme Court held that if it was found that "building" or structure constituted apparatus or tool of taxpayer by means of which business activities were carried on, amounted to "plant" but where structure played no part in carrying on these activities but merely constituted place where they were carried on, "building" could not be regarded as "plant". In Karnataka Power Corporation case, Supreme Court, while considering appeal filed by Revenue, whereby authorities below has held generating station to be "plant", was of view that its judgment in Anand Theatres (supra) cannot be read so broadly and held as under (page 270 of 247 ITR): "It is difficult to read judgment in case of Anand Theatres [2000] 244 ITR 192 (SC) so broadly. question before court was whether building that was used as hotel or cinema theatre could be given deprecation on basis that it was a'plant' and it was in relation to that question that court considered host of authorities of this country and England and came to conclusion that building which was used as hotel or cinema theatre could not be given depreciation on basis that it was plant. We must add that court said (page 225 of 244 ITR):'To differentiate building for grant of additional depreciation by holding it to be "plant" in one case where building is specially designed and constructed with some special features to attract customers and building not so constructed but used for same purpose, namely, as hotel or theatre would be unreasonable'. This observation is, in our view, limited to buildings that are used for purposes of hotels or cinema theatres and will not always apply otherwise. question, basically, is question of fact, and where it is found as fact that building has been so planned and constructed as to serve assessee's special technical requirements, it will qualify to be treated as plant for purposes of investment allowance. In instant case, there is finding by fact-finding authority that assessee's generating station building is so constructed as to be integral part of its generating system. It must, therefore, be held that it is a'plant' and entitled to investment allowance accordingly. third question is answered in affirmative and in favour of assessee. civil appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs." (emphasis supplied) Thus, structure constructed for special technical needs and requirement was "plant" or "machinery" like generator station building, could be treated as "plant". We note that in some of judgments relied upon by appellant assessee, various High Courts have considered this aspect. In Nowrangroy Metals Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra), Gauhati High Court has held as under (page 236 of 262 ITR): "In present case, applying tests we have to ascertain whether building in question is plant or not for assessee to claim higher rate of depreciation. report of architect engineer specifically mentions that mill building is designed in such manner that it holds entire plant and machinery and beams and columns are erected to hold entire load of plant and machinery on each floor. report also states that all floors are constructed with specifically reinforced RCC materials as per technical requirements and structure is made with heavy reinforced steel and concrete to hold weight of heavy machines installed in each floor with load bearing capacity of one ton per square meter and that all four walls of structure and ceiling are fitted with flow pipes and other electrical fittings and that plant cannot be held and run without said specially designed structure. It can be said that structure holds entire plant and machinery and therefore is integral part of plant. From this report, it is clear that building has been constructed specifically for carrying out manufacturing of atta and flour. manufacture activities cannot be carried out in any other building except in building specifically designed for that purpose." Similarly in Kamala Selvaraj (supra) Madras High Court considering case of doctor who claimed extra shift allowance of depreciation treating business of her nursing home as "plant" for assessment year 1983-84, Assessing Officer disallowed claim on ground that it is not "plant", which order was upheld by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but Tribunal concluded that assessee is entitled to extra shift allowance by holding nursing home as "plant". High Court by holding that Tribunal had not considered based on evidence what was area available in assessee's nursing home which should be construed as "plant" and what was remaining area which would come within meaning of word "building" not attracting definition of word "plant", remanded matter to Tribunal for fresh consideration. This court in R. C. Chemicals (supra) has evolved following principles (page 336 of 134 ITR): "(a) definition of'plant' in section 43(3) should be given wide meaning as it is inclusive definition. (b) All buildings are not'plant' despite dictionary meaning which includes buildings; but building or structure is not per se to be excluded from ambit of expression'plant'. (c) If concrete construction or building is used as premises or setting in which business is carried on in contradistinction to fulfilling of function of plant, building or construction or part thereof is not considered plant. true test is whether it is means of'carrying on business' or location for so doing. (d) In order, for building or concrete structure, to qualify for inclusion in term'plant', it must be established that it is impossible for equipment to function without particular type of structure. (e) particular apparatus or item must be used for carrying on assessee's business and must not be his stock-in-trade. matter has to be considered in context of particular business of assessee, e. g., books are lawyer's plant but bookseller's stockin-trade." We may only state here that judgment of this court in R. C. Chemicals case (supra) must be read in light of judgment of Supreme Court in Anand Theatres (supra) and Karnataka Power Corporation (supra). court applied aforesaid principles to facts, wherein assessee was involved in business of manufacturing saccharine in "building" which according to assessee would come within expression "plant". Rejecting stand, this court was of view that mere setting, albeit convenient one where business of manufacturing is carried on, it has not been established that manufacture of saccharine was not possible without particular features said to have been incorporated in "building" nor is there any finding to this effect. "building" free from atmospheric vagaries might have certain advantages as compared with normal construction but in facts of present case remained space or shelter where business of manufacturing saccharine was carried on as opposed to means. It is noted that counsel for assessee conceded that there are other companies and concerns which were carrying on business of manufacturing saccharine in normal buildings. court held that correct query in present context appears to be whether particular features incorporated in "building" in question were essential to manufacturing process and functioning of equipment making it integral part of "plant". According to this court, answer being in negative it is apparent that "building" in question remained location and was not converted into means for carrying on business. In Astra-IDL Ltd. (supra), wherein Karnataka High Court on finding of Tribunal that "building" was used only for manufacturing and supplying medicine and no other business has held "building" to be "plant". According to High Court, it constituted apparatus and tool for assessee by means of which business activities were being carried out. Allahabad High Court in S. K. Tulsi and Sons' case (supra) has held cinema "building" to be "plant" by holding that in order to find out whether "building" or structure or part thereof constitutes "plant", functional test must be applied. If it is found that "building" or structure constitute apparatus or tool of taxpayer by means of which business activities are carried on, it would amount to "plant" but where structure plays no part in carrying on those activities but merely constitute place within which they are carried on "building" cannot be regarded as "plant". From above, it is clear that real test to construe structure as "plant", it is to be seen that structure is used as tool or apparatus in business of assessee. In other words, structure is so constructed so as to serve assessee's special technical requirements which in normal parlance is called functional test. As has been noted above, toll road has been executed by assessee on built, operate and transfer basis (BOT). BOT is form of project financing wherein private entity receives concession from public sector or for that matter private sector to finance, design, construct and operate facility stated in concession contract. This enables project proponent to recover its investment, operating and maintenance expenses in project. facility shall be transferred to public sector at end of concession period. word "build" signifies construction of road, whereby taxpayer brings into existence structure/surface and nothing more. word "operate" signifies understanding between assessee and public authority to collect charges for usage of road. road is surface on which vehicles ply. No special features have been pointed out which serves as tool or apparatus while operating road. No doubt in some roads toll plazas are erected for collecting usage charges. These are small booths which are manned at some places and unmanned at some, where user deposits money in machine which opens gate. To cut costs and minimise time delay, usage charges are collected by some form of automatic or electronic toll collection equipment. In any case, manned toll booths/toll plazas are primarily facility/convenience for collecting usage charges of road and nothing more. That would not change characteristic of "road". To sum up it is clarified that "plant" as defined and understood for tax purposes means tool or equipment used for purposes of business or profession. Toll road would not be plant in that sense, for, it is capital asset which when used by any person, who makes payment for said use, generates and results in accrual of income. It is capital asset which is very business of assessee and not implement or tool used by assessee for his business. assessee and not implement or tool used by assessee for his business. In facts of case, we are of view that toll road would not qualify as "plant" so as to entitle assessee higher rate of depreciation. We answer question in favour of Revenue and against appellant. appeals are dismissed. No costs. *** Moradabad Toll Road Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax