Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur v. M/S Sarvodaya Mining Services
High Court
06 Jul 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · rhcjodh240618
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur v. M/S Sarvodaya Mining Services
Date of order
06 Jul 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur v. M/S Sarvodaya Mining Services, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR
D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.22/2016
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, UdaipurVs.M/s Sarvodaya Mining Services
Date of Order: 06.07.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHURHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the appellant.
*******
This appeal is preferred to question the correctness ofthe order dated 08.01.2016, passed by learned Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. Learned Tribunalaffirmed the order dated 02.06.2014 passed by learnedCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Udaipur for theassessment year 2010-11.
Briefly stated the case of the appellant is thatAssessing Officer after considering all the relevant facts arrived atthe conclusion that assessee was not using the vehiclein a business of running them hire, depreciation of 15%is allowable, therefore, he was not entitled for depreciation at therate. Accordingly an addition was made.
The commissioner of Income Tax while accepting theappeal preferred by the assessee held that for earlier yearsdepreciation was extended and therefore, the consistencydemands to grant the same. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunaltoo was on the same view, therefore, dismissed the appealpreferred by the revenue.
Goyal RameshItem No.36
Having considered the judgment impugned, we are ofthe opinion that judgment impugned is in consonance with thesettled practice and it does not suffer from any wrong. Theappeal as such does not involve any substantial question of law.Accordingly the same is dismissed.
,J. ,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.