PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT 1 vs. M/S H D ENTERPRISE
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Court noted that a coordinate Bench of the High Court had previously considered the very same question of law in a batch of Tax Appeals, including Tax Appeal No. 414 of 2018 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1 Vs. Durga Construction Company, decided on May 1, 2018), and all those appeals had failed on that question. In the present case, the High Court found that the proposed question of law could not be termed as a substantial question of law. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The specific reasoning for why the higher depreciation rate was permissible or why the question was not substantial was not detailed, beyond the reliance on the previous coordinate bench decision.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot, filed a Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, dated February 28, 2020. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2012-13 and concerned the rate of depreciation allowed on dumpers. The Assessing Officer had allowed depreciation at 15%. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who granted a higher rate of 30%. The Revenue's subsequent appeal to the ITAT was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s order. The present appeal challenges the ITAT's decision.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in confirming the decision of CIT(A) granting higher rate of depreciation @ 30% on dumpers as against depreciation @ 15% allowed by the assessing officer? (Question of law and fact, concerning depreciation rates under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in law and facts by confirming the CIT(A)'s decision to grant a higher depreciation rate of 30% on dumpers, contrary to the 15% allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue's appeal was based on this proposed question of law.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
C/TAXAP/357/2020 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 357 of 2020 ========================================================== PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT 1 Versus M/S H D ENTERPRISE ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 02/12/2020
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot dated 28th February, 2020 in the ITA No. 205/RJT/2016 for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following question of law for consideration of this Court: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in confirming the decision of CIT(A) granting higher rate of depreciation @ 30% on dumpers as against depreciation @ 15% allowed by the assessing officer?” Page 1 of 3
C/TAXAP/357/2020 ORDER 3. We have heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue. 4. We take notice of the fact that the very same question of law as proposed in the present appeal was taken into consideration by a coordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of Tax Appeals, the main appeal being Tax Appeal No. 414 of 2018 (Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1 Vs. Durga Construction Company decided on 1st May, 2018. All the appeals failed on the proposed question of law. 5. In case on hand, it appears that the Assessing Officer granted depriciation on the dumpers at the rate of 15%. The assessee being dissatisfied, went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short “CIT (A)”). The CIT(A) granted higher rate of depreciation at the rate of 30%. The Revenue being dissatisfied with the order passed by the CIT(A) went in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the CIT(A) granting higher rate of depreciation at the Page 2 of 3
C/TAXAP/357/2020 ORDER rate of 30% on the dumpers. Having regard to the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court referred to above and even otherwise, we are of the view that the question of law as proposed cannot be termed as substantial question of law. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (VIKRAM NATH, CJ) (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) A. B. VAGHELA/A.M.PIRZADA Page 3 of 3
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
