Case LawHigh Court › Itta/73/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income T...

Itta/73/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii v. M/S Utkal Manufacturing And Service Ltd

High Court 03 Dec 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/73/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii v. M/S Utkal Manufacturing And Service Ltd
Date of order
03 Dec 2014
Assessment year(s)
1994-95
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itta/73/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii v. M/S Utkal Manufacturing And Service Ltd, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A No.73 of 2004 JUDGMENT:-(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The respondent purchased six Tippers in the year 1993,which become relevant for the assessment year 1994-95. UnderSection 32 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee would qualify for100% depreciation on the value of the Tippers if they have beenput to use for more than 180 days. The Assessing Officer did notallow the claim and ultimately, the matter landed before theVisakhapatnam Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal inI.T.A.No.174/Vizag/98. Through its order, dated 25.08.2003, theTribunal took the view that the Tippers became roadworthy on29.09.1993 and they were put to use far exceeding 180 days in therelevant assessment year. Hence, this appeal. Heard Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Standing Counsel forthe appellant and Sri A.V.Krishna Kaundinya, learned counsel forthe respondent. It is not in dispute that the assessee would be entitled toclaim 100% depreciation on the cost of the Tippers if they are putto use for a period exceeding 180 days in the relevant assessmentyear. Though the Assessing Officer expressed doubt, the Tribunalon verification of the record, found that the vehicles were put to use for more than 180 days. Firstly, it is a pure question of factand secondly, the Department is not able to demonstrate as tohow the finding of the Tribunal is not correct. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no orderas to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall alsostand disposed of. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date:03.12.2014 ________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J kdl
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