The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ganga Stone Traders

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs Ganga Stone Traders

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Nov 22, 1990

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/759708

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/759708
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: K.C. Agrawal and; B.R. Arora, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 22, 1990
Case Number: D.B. Income Tax reference Case No. 9 of 1990
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Income Tax Act 1961 - Section 260--Depreciation Turks used for own business--Held, assessee is entitled to depreciation of 30% and not 40%.;The assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 30% and not @ 40% on the trucks used by it for its business.;Reference answered in favour of revenue. - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & ...

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Commissioner of Income Tax

Respondent

Ganga Stone Traders

Legal References

Cases Referred: Jaipur v. Manjeet Stone Co.
Reported In: 1990(2)WLN393

Excerpt

income tax act 1961 - section 260--depreciation turks used for own business--held, assessee is entitled to depreciation of 30% and not 40%.;the assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 30% and not @ 40% on the trucks used by it for its business.;reference answered in favour of revenue. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....commissioner of income tax, allowing the depreciation @ 40%, the revenue preferred an appeal before the income tax appellate tribunal, jaipur bench, jaipur, and the tribunal, placing reliance over the judgments in the case of: manjeet stone company, dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. aggrieved with the order passed by the tribunal, the revenue moved ah application under section 256(1) of the act, requesting the tribunal to refer the question mentioned in the application for the opinion of the high court, which, according to the department, arises out of the order passed by the tribunal. the tribunal, by its order dated october 31, 1989, referred the question of law, mentioned in para no. 1 above, for the opinion of the high court.3. the same question camp-up for consideration before us in d.b. income tax reference case no. 77/1985 (the commissioner of income tax, jaipur v. manjeet stone company, kota), which we have decided today, wherein, while answering the question in favour of the revenue, we have held that as the truck has been used by the assessee in its business, therefore, the case of the assessee is covered by entry no. iii (ii) d-9 and not by entry no. iii (ii) e-(l-a) of part i of appendix-1, appended to the income tax rules, 1962,.and as such, the assessee is entitled for the depreciation @ 30% and not @ 40%.4. for the reasons given in d.b. income tax reference case no. 77/1985 (the commissioner of income tax, jaipur v. manjeet stone co., kota), we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 30% and not @ 40% on the trucks used by it for its business. the question referred is, therefore, answered in negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. no order as to costs.5. let the answer be returned to the tribunal in accordance with section 260(1) of the income tax act.

Full Judgment

B.R. Arora, J.

1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:

Wthether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the aseessee was entitled to depreciation on trucks @ 40% as against 30% allowed by the Income fax Officer?

2. The assessee is engaged in the business of exploiting the mines and sale of stones. The assessee also owns trucks, which are used in carrying the stones from the miness to the godown of the assessee or to sale dopot of the assessee-For the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee claimed depreciation on the trucks, which were used by it for its bueinss @ 40%. The Income Tax Officer, while completing the assessment, allowed the depreciation @ 30%, though the assessee claimed the same @ 40%. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, who allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and allowed depreciation @ 40%. Aggrieved with the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, allowing the depreciation @ 40%, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, and the Tribunal, placing reliance over the judgments in the case of: Manjeet Stone Company, dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Aggrieved with the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue moved ah application Under Section 256(1) of the Act, requesting the Tribunal to refer the question mentioned in the application for the opinion of the High Court, which, according to the department, arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated October 31, 1989, referred the question of law, mentioned in Para No. 1 above, for the opinion of the High Court.

3. The same question camp-up for consideration before us in D.B. Income Tax Reference Case No. 77/1985 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur v. Manjeet Stone Company, Kota), which we have decided today, wherein, while answering the question in favour of the Revenue, we have held that as the truck has been used by the assessee in its business, therefore, the case of the assessee is covered by Entry No. III (ii) D-9 and not by Entry No. III (ii) E-(l-A) of part I of Appendix-1, appended to the Income Tax Rules, 1962,.and as such, the assessee is entitled for the depreciation @ 30% and not @ 40%.

4. For the reasons given in D.B. Income Tax Reference Case No. 77/1985 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur v. Manjeet Stone Co., Kota), we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 30% and not @ 40% on the trucks used by it for its business. The question referred is, therefore, answered in negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.

5. Let the answer be returned to the Tribunal in accordance with Section 260(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1990 Same Parties The Commissioner of Income Tax vs Ganga Stone Traders Same Subject Direct Taxation Same Judge K.C. Agrawal and; B.R. Arora, JJ.

Direct Taxation