The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Imperial Motor Stores
High Court
02 Jul 2008 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Imperial Motor Stores
Date of order
02 Jul 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Imperial Motor Stores, the High Court (2008) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
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
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Imperial Motor Stores ... Respondent
Mr.S.M. Shah for the Appellant.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ.DATED: JULY 02, 2008
CORAM: F.I.
K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ.
DATED: JULY 02, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
. The question of law is as framed in Para No. 4
of the Appeal Memo. The admitted facts are that the
assessee had sold two office premises viz. G2 and
G2A on the basement of Prasad Chambers Premises CHS
Ltd. Opera House, Mumbai 400 004. The Assessing
Officer on the basis that the depreciation is
leviable for those properties, passed an order which
was impugned before the C.I.T.(A). The C.I.T. (A)
noted that Section 50 of the Income Tax Act consists
of two provisions for capital gains for depreciable
assets and therefore, it has to over ride the
general procedure for computing the capital gains
under section 48. It has further held that the
fiction created under section 50 for deeming any
provision arising on transfer of a depreciable asset
as short term capital gain is for purposes of
section 48 only. Relying on the judgment of
Guwahati High Court and Gujarat High Court, it was
held that long term capital asset has been
transferred. This order was taken in appeal by
Revenue. The tribunal followed the decision of
Guwahati High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Assam
Petroleum Industries, 262, ITR 587 (Gauhati).
Revenue has been unable to show that on immovable
properties depreciation is allowed and that in fact
the respondent herein had claimed depreciation.
. In our opinion, it is not possible to take a view
different from the I.T.A.T. In the light of that,
the question of law as framed would not arise.
Hence, appeal dismissed.
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, 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.