ITA No. 20 of 2005. 3.8. 2009 Present: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala & Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocates, for the appellant. Mr. Lovnesh Kanwar, counsel for the respondent. This is an appeal against the order dated 24.11.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench `B’ in I.T.A. Nos. 891, 892 & 893/Chandi/2000 Assessment years 94-95, 95-96 & 96-97 dismissing the appeal of the revenue. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in law holding that Poultry Sheds used for the business of hatching constitute `Plant’ for the purpose of granting depreciation particularly in the light of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases wherein it has been specifically held that such buildings could not be treated as plant for the purposes of depreciation u/s 32 of the I.T. Act, 1961? The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue and assessee have stated that in ITR No. 6 of 1996 decided by a Division Bench of this court on 24.6.2008, one of the questions of law referred for opinion under Section256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), was as follows:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding the poultry sheds and water lines for sheds as `plant’ for the purposes of depreciation allowance and investment allowance under the Income-tax Act? In ITR No. 6 of 1996, the assessment years were 1981-83 to 1985-86 and the assessee in the present appeal was also assessee in ITR No. 6 of 1996. The Division Bench in judgement dated 24.6.2008 has noticed definition of `plant’ in sub-section (3) of Section 43, which at the relevant time was as follows:- “Plant includes ships, vehicles, books, scientific apparatus and surgical equipment used for the purposes of the business of profession but does not include tea bushes or livestock.” Later on vide Finance Act of 2003 w.e.f. 1.4.2004, the following words were added at the end of the definition: “Or building or furniture and fittings." The learned counsel for the parties have jointly stated that the Division Bench in judgement dated 24.6.2008 has held that poultry sheds were plant within the meaning of Section 43 of the Act at the relevant time. The learned counsel for the parties have stated that substantial question of law framed in the present appeal is covered by decision dated 24.6.2008. In light of judgement dated 24.6.2008 in ITR No. 6 of 1996, where it has been held that poultry sheds are plant within the meaning of Section 43 of the Act for purposes of depreciation, therefore, the substantial question of law framed in the present appeal is decided in favour of the assessee and against revenue and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. ( R.B.Misra), Judge. August 3, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.