Case LawHigh Court › Itta/169/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itta/169/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv v. M/S. Nav Bharat Enterprises Limited

High Court 02 Jul 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/169/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv v. M/S. Nav Bharat Enterprises Limited
Date of order
02 Jul 2013
Assessment year(s)
2005-2006
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Itta/169/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv v. M/S. Nav Bharat Enterprises Limited, the High Court (2013) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be admitted on the following suggested question of law: Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law, Hon’ble ITAT is justified inholding that depreciation is allowable on assetsincluded in the block of assets without consideringthe fact that the as...

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.169 OF 2013 Between:Commissioner of Income Tax-IVHyderabad ..... Appellant AND Dr. P.Ravishankar .....Respondent The Court made the following : JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be admitted on the following suggested question of law: Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law, Hon’ble ITAT is justified inholding that depreciation is allowable on assetsincluded in the block of assets without consideringthe fact that the assessee has not put such assets touse during the relevant previous year ended on31.3.2005? This appeal has been preferred against thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated3.8.2012 in relation to the assessment year 2005-2006.The learned Tribunal while rendering the judgmentrecorded fact-finding that the assessee had not stoppedits business activities and the block of assets are put inuse of such business. Under the circumstances,depreciation has to be allowed in law, as provided underSec. 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 32 (1)provides that the depreciation of buildings, machinery,plant or furniture being tangible assets, owned wholly orpartly, by the assessee and used for the purposes of thebusiness or profession, the following deductions shall be allowed (i)……….. (ii) in the case of any block of assets, suchpercentage on the written down value thereof as maybe prescribed. Under the circumstances, no question of lawrequires to be decided, as the application of law dependsupon the fact-finding and the fact-finding has been arrivedat by both the authorities below Therefore, we do not see any ground to interferewith the impugned judgment and order. Consequently, theappeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. July 02, 2013MAS __________G.Rohini, J.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan