RAJ KUMAR YADAV,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3531/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 July 2022AY 2013-144 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by a previous decision in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 50% on commercial vehicles.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation at 50% on commercial vehicles, but the Assessing Officer allowed only 30%. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the correct rate of depreciation applicable to commercial vehicles.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Gupta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.07.2022Pronounced: 22.07.2022

ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 19.02.2018 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-1, Gurugram pertaining to assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The solitary dispute arising in the present appeal relates to the rate of depreciation on the commercial vehicles. While, assessee has claimed depreciation @ 50%, by stating that these vehicles are commercial vehicles, the Assessing Officer has rejected assessee’s claim and has allowed depreciation @ 30%.

3.

Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer before learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, he was unsuccessful.

4.

Before me, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-12. A copy of order dated 11.04.2019 passed in was placed on record.

5.

Learned Departmental Representative fairly agreed that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal.

6.

I have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

7.

On reading of paragraph 4.3 of the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is observed that he has upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer relying upon the orders passed by him in assessee’s own case in assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14.

However, while deciding identical dispute arising in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2011-12, the Tribunal, in the order referred to above, has accepted assessee’s claim of depreciation @ 50%. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case, I direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation @ 50%.

8.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.

More judgments on Section 32

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →