Thane (W) ... App v. M/S. S.c.thakur & Bros
High Court
27 Jan 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Thane (W) ... App v. M/S. S.c.thakur & Bros
Date of order
27 Jan 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Thane (W) ... App v. M/S. S.c.thakur & Bros, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal.
Issue: (2008) 171 Taxmann 474 (SC) the correct test which the authorities below had to apply was whether the appellant was in the business of transportation and whether the vehicles were used in the said business.
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 AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 496 OF 2005
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 496 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Thane-II, Vardan, MIDC Building,
9th Floor, Room No. 16,
Wagale Industrial Estate,
ellant ... App
Thane (W) ... App
Versus
M/s. S.C.Thakur & Bros.,
At Post Gavan, Tal. Panvel,
Dist. Raigad ... Respondents
Mr.Vimal Gupta i/by Ms. Devki Iyer for the
Appellant.
Ms. Aasifa Khan for Respondents.
CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, &
R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: JANUARY 27, 2009
DATED: JANUARY 27, 2009
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per F.I. Rebello,J.):
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per F.I. Rebello,J.):
. The Revenue has come in appeal on the following
question :
(a) The substantial question of law which
arises in the present appeal is regarding
the correct interpretation of Section 32 of
the Income Tax Act and other relevant
provisions of the Act and whether on the
facts and in the circumstances of the case
and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal erred in
confirming the order of CIT(A) and allowing
the depreciation to the assessee @ 50% and
40% respectively for A.Ys.1991-92 and
1996-97 on the value of trucks/dumpers owned
by the assessee and further failed to
appreciate that the assessee was only a
civil contractor and was not engaged in the
business of, wisely out asset i.e.
trucks/dumpers transportation."
2. On behalf of the appellant the learned counsel
submits that considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.I.T. Vs. Gupta Global Exim (P) Ltd. (2008) 171 Taxmann 474 (SC) the correct test which
the authorities below had to apply was whether the appellant was in the business of transportation and whether the vehicles were used in the said business.
3. In the instant case, the learned C.I.T. for the
assessment year 1996-97 recorded a finding that the appellant was required to transport the earth from one place to another for filling and the earth so
transported did not belong to the assessee and as
such the appellants business receipts to a large
extent, can be held to be price of the charges received for transporting the goods from one place to another. The learned tribunal also recorded a
finding that the appellant had also shown
transportation income from third parties such as
Bharat Petroleum Ltd. in its asssessment year
1996-97. Considering these facts the learned C.I.T.
(A) arrived at the conclusion that the appellant is
entitled to deprecation at higher rate as set out in
its order.
4. In appeal the learned tribunal relied on the
circular No. 652 dated 14.6.1997 issued by the
C.B.D.T. which reads as under :
"Subject : Section 32 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 - Rate of depreciation on motor
lorries used in the business of
transportation of goods - Regarding.
Under sub item 2(ii) of Item No. III of
Appendix 1 to the Income Tax Rules, 1962,
higher rate of depreciation is admissible on
motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis
used in a business of running tem on hire.
A question has been raised as to whether for
deriving the benefit of higher depreciation,
motor lorries must be hired out to some
other person and whether the user of the
same in the assessee’s business of
transportation of goods on hire would
suffice.
2. In Board’s Circular No. 609 dated 29th
July, 1991, it was clarified that where a
tour operator or travel agent uses motor
business or motor taxis owned by him in
providing transportation services to
transportation of goods - Regarding.
Under sub item 2(ii) of Item No. III of
Appendix 1 to the Income Tax Rules, 1962,
higher rate of depreciation is admissible on
motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis
used in a business of running tem on hire.
A question has been raised as to whether for
deriving the benefit of higher depreciation,
motor lorries must be hired out to some
other person and whether the user of the
same in the assessee’s business of
transportation of goods on hire would
suffice.
2. In Board’s Circular No. 609 dated 29th
July, 1991, it was clarified that where a
tour operator or travel agent uses motor
business or motor taxis owned by him in
providing transportation services to
tourists, higher rate of depreciation would
be allowed on such vehicles. It is fuhrer
clarified that higher depreciation will also
be admissible on motor lorries used for the
assessee’s business of transportation of
goods on hire. The higher rate of
depreciation however, will not apply if the
motor business, motor lorries etc. are used
in some other non-hiring business of the
assessee."
5. A perusal of the said circular would make it
clear that the higher rate of depreciation is also
admissible when the motor lorry is used by the
assessees in his own business of transportation of
goods on hire. Considering the findings recorded by
CIT (A) and the Boards Circular and the judgment of
Supreme Court in Gutpa Global Exim (supra), in our
opinion, no error can be found in the orders of the
CIT (A) as also that of I.T.A.T.
6. In the light of that appeal dismissed.
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I. REBELLO,J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(F.I. REBELLO,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.