Mumbai v. M/S. Parikh Petrochemicals
High Court
03 Dec 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai v. M/S. Parikh Petrochemicals
Date of order
03 Dec 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mumbai v. M/S. Parikh Petrochemicals, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal.
Issue: Whether in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ShaanFinance Private Limited reported in 231 ITR308 and in the case of Kotak Mahindra FinanceLimited reported in (Bom) 265 ITR 119 and the decision of Madras High Court in the case ofMadan & Co., reported in 245 ITR...
Decision: In the result, appeal is dismissed. [ V.C.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
VPH
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 191 OF 2006
Commissioner of Income-Tax-3, Appellant
Mumbai
Vs
M/s. Parikh Petrochemicals ... Respondent
Agencies, Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. Vimal Gupta, for the appellant.
Ms. Usha Dalal, for the respondent.
CORAM: Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, &
V. C. DAGA, JJ.
DATED: DECEMBER 3, 2008.
P.C.:
----
. Heard the lerned counsel for the appellant and
the learned counsel for the respondent. Following
substantial questions of law are raised in the appeal.
Whether in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ShaanFinance Private Limited reported in 231 ITR308 and in the case of Kotak Mahindra FinanceLimited reported in (Bom) 265 ITR 119 and the decision of Madras High Court in the case ofMadan & Co., reported in 245 ITR 445, the
Finance Private Limited
308
- 2 -
learned ITAT was right in partly allowing the
Appeals as preferred by the Assessee,
inter-alia holding that the assessee deserves
to be granted higher rate of depreciation as
claimed by them?
2. We have perused the judgment of the Tribunal
dated 17th August 2005 wherein the Tribunal relying on
KotakMahindra Finance Limited reported in (Bom) 265 ITR 119
the judgment of this Court in the case of Kotak
Mahindra Finance Limited
has clearly held that the appellant therein was in the
business of leasing the vehicles on hire, and applying
the principles of the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal
found that assessee was having right to claim higher
rate of depreciation.
3. It is very clear that this Court relying on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T
C.I.TVs. Shaan Finance Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) held that
Vs. Shaan Finance Pvt. Ltd.
assessee would be entitled to such a benefit, if an
assessee hiring vehicle on lease, were likely to
undergo rough use of the vehicle and which should be
having more wear and tear cost, and in view thereof
higher depreciation is permissible.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.
- 3 -
Gupta sought to distinguish the same by referring to
the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gupta Global Exim(P) Ltd. reported in [2008] 171 TAXMAN 474 (SC).
of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gupta Global Exim
(P) Ltd.
Perusal of the said judgment clearly indicates that
there is categorical finding of the Assessing Officer
that the assessee was occasionally in the business of
transportation and mainly he was in the business of
importing timber logs and selling them in India.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
assessee was denied highe depreciation in that case.
The said judgment has no applicability in the present
case. In view thereof, no substantial question of law
is involved in this case. In the result, appeal is
dismissed.
[ V.C. DAGA, J.] [ Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
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.