SATYA PRAKASH BUILDERS LTD,MADAN MAHAL, JABALPUR vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MISSION COMPOUND
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the eligibility for 30% depreciation on transit mixers depends on whether they are used in a business of running them on hire. The issue was restored to the AO for verification of this fact.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed depreciation on transit mixers. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, leading to an addition. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, deleting an addition related to brought forward losses but confirming the disallowance of depreciation on transit mixers.
What were the issues?
The primary issue is whether transit mixers used for supplying mixed concrete to customers qualify for depreciation at 30% if they are not explicitly used in a business of running them on hire.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI, GD PADMAHSHALI
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, filed by the assessee, against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 05.06.2024 pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. That the CIT(A) has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to confirm the addition of Rs.21,10,393/- considering that the disallowance of depreciation on Transit Mixture is justified.
That the addition confirmed for Rs.21,10,393/- on account of disallowance of depreciation on Transit Mixture is arbitrary and bad in law.
That the assessee crave leave to raise any
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026