ASHOK CONTRUCTION CO. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITR/397/1984HC GujaratGJHC24012062198410 August 2000Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question referred to it was squarely covered by its own previous decision in Shiv Construction Co. v. CIT, reported in 165 ITR 160. In that earlier case, the High Court had considered an identical question regarding the entitlement to depreciation at 30% on dumpers. The High Court had answered that question in the negative, meaning it ruled against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Therefore, following this precedent, the High Court answered the present reference in the negative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. The ratio decidendi is that if a prior High Court decision directly addresses and resolves an identical issue concerning depreciation on dumpers, subsequent references on the same point should follow that precedent.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference filed by the assessee, Ashok Construction Co., against the Commissioner of Income Tax. The reference was made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The core of the dispute pertains to the assessee's entitlement to depreciation at a rate of 30% on dumpers. The procedural history indicates that the Tribunal referred a specific question of law to the High Court for its opinion. The High Court was informed that the issue was directly covered by a previous decision of the same court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation @ 30% on dumpers? (Question of law turning on the interpretation of depreciation provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through its counsel, argued that the question referred is squarely covered by a previous decision of the High Court in Shiv Construction Co. v. CIT reported in 165 ITR 160. This implies the assessee believed the prior ruling supported their claim for 30% depreciation on dumpers. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the fact that the Tribunal referred the question suggests the revenue likely opposed the assessee's claim for 30% depreciation on dumpers.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 397 of 1984

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE

============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5.

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO 1 Yes 2 to 5 No -------------------------------------------------------------- ASHOK CONTRUCTION CO. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MANISH J SHAH for MR JP SHAH for Petitioner MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1

--------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE

Date of decision: 10/08/2000

ORAL JUDGEMENT

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion this Court under sec. 256(1)of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :

"Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the depreciation @ 30% on dumpers?"

2.

When this Reference is called out for hearing, we are told by the learned counsel that the question is squarely covered by a decision of this court in Shiv Construction Co. v. CIT reported in 165 ITR 160. In that reference, the High Court, considering an identical question namely, "whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation @ 30% on dumpers?", answered the question in the negative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

3.

Following the said decision, the question referred to us is answered in the negative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

4.

The Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. _____

(R.K. Abichandani, J.)

(A.R. Dave, J.) (hn)

More judgments on Section 256(1)

All 755 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →