Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mahalinga Setty And Co. on 11 March, 1991
On the other hand, the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahalinga Shetty & Co. (supra) had not only considered the user of the dumpers and tippers for the purpose of business of construction, but also the relevant question whether they could be considered as road transport vehicles and came to the conclusion that the phrase "road transport vehicles" would not include dumpers and tippers which are directly used in the activity of business at the place where the business is actually carried on because dumpers and tippers are essentially machinery used to carry on construction work, namely, lifting of earth and transporting the same which helped to produce article or thing and, therefore, such machinery is entitled to investment allowance under S. 32A. The case laws marshalled by the learned counsel for the assessee all go to support the claim of the assessee for investment allowance and additional depreciation and therefore, we uphold the decision of the CIT(A) on this point.
Shah Construction Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 6 December, 1988
9. As regards the question whether the trucks, dumpers and tippers should be regarded as road transport vehicle, we have looked into the registration certificates of these vehicles. Although the vehicles are subject to taxation initially when they are registered but they were exempt from periodical taxation by the RTO a fact which goes to establish that these vehicles were all used at the site of work where business is carried on. It also goes to show that these vehicles are not meant to be road transport vehicles nor were used as road transport vehicles so as to fall within the mischief of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shah Construction Co. (supra). Further, the Board has given clarification for adopting the functional test to come to the conclusion whether a particular vehicle is to be regarded as road transport vehicle or not. Even from this point of view there could be no doubt because there is no finding brought on record to show that these vehicles were used in the administrative office or on road or brought on road repairs or for transporting men or material. Taking the depreciation schedule for the asst. yr. 1982-83 it is admitted by both the parties that investment allowance and additional depreciation is not admissible on truck MTV 9873 and truck MTV 9893, because they do not satisfy the functional test laid down by the Board Correspondingly we hold that the assessee is not eligible for proportionate investment allowance and additional depreciation on these two trucks because the functional test laid down by the Board is not satisfied in this case. Coming to the depreciation schedule for the asst. yr. 1983-84, there were 8 tippers and one truck, and are eligible for investment allowance and additional depreciation. No registration is needed for two stone crushers and one cement mixure. For the asst. yr. 1984-85 all were contractors machinery eligible for investment allowance and additional depreciation. In view of the factual and legal position stated above, subject to the directions given for the asst. yr. 1982-83, we uphold the decision of the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to grant investment allowance and additional depreciation for the dumpers, tippers and trucks.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Popular Borewell Service And Others on 23 April, 1991
He further referred to the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Popular Borewell Service & Ors. (1992) 194 ITR 12 (Mad). He pointed out that only the rigs and compressors are used for drilling bore-wells and though mounted on the lorry could not be regarded as part of machinery for the purpose of grant of special rate of depreciation of 30% but they were all entitled to investment allowance. In this connection, he pointed out that only new machinery acquired during the period 1st April, 1980 and 31st March, 1985 alone would be eligible for additional depreciation as contemplated in S. 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act, 1961 but if such machinery happens to fall under cl. (b) of second proviso to S. 32A of the IT Act, 1961, namely "any office appliances of road transport vehicles", investment allowance is not admissible and also additional depreciation is also not admissible. The burden of the learned Departmental Representative was that the impugned trucks and dumpers and tippers under consideration are nothing but road transport vehicles and, therefore, they are not eligible of investment allowance or additional depreciation. Therefore, he vehemently urged that the CIT(A) was not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to grant investment allowance as well as additional on the impugned vehicles.
Shankar Construction Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 November, 1990
6. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, filed elaborate paper compilation and referred to them in the course of his arguments to support the decision of the CIT(A). In fact, he has filed year-wise particulars of new purchase of machinery for these years under consideration and also corresponding depreciation schedule for block of assets. As regards the eligibility for investment allowance, the learned counsel for the assessee relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Shankar Construction Co. vs. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 463 (Kar) for the proposition that the business of construction of dams and channels was an industrial undertaking entitled to investment allowance.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. on 3 May, 1991
Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhageeratha Engg. Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 674 (Ker) wherein it has been held that construction company acquiring plant and machinery and manufacturing and processing various materials such as reinforced concrete slabs is an industrial undertaking entitled to investment allowance.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Pressure Pilling Co. (India) P. Ltd. on 10 January, 1979
4. On appeal, the assessee reiterated the claim for additional depreciation and investment allowance and this claim was accepted by the CIT(A), Nashik presumably keeping in view of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pressure Piling Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 333 (Bom) and the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of CIT vs. N. C. Budharaja & Co. (1980) 121 ITR 212 (Ori). Revenue is in appeal on common grounds to urge that the CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to grant investment allowance and also the additional depreciation and, therefore, his order should be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs N.C. Budharaja And Company on 13 November, 1979
4. On appeal, the assessee reiterated the claim for additional depreciation and investment allowance and this claim was accepted by the CIT(A), Nashik presumably keeping in view of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pressure Piling Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 333 (Bom) and the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of CIT vs. N. C. Budharaja & Co. (1980) 121 ITR 212 (Ori). Revenue is in appeal on common grounds to urge that the CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to grant investment allowance and also the additional depreciation and, therefore, his order should be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.
1