KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1081/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 November 2020AY 2014-152 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's counsel stated that they did not wish to press the claim for depreciation on bridges. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeals.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation on bridges for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. The revenue authorities disallowed the claim on the grounds that the assessee was neither the owner nor user of the bridges for its business.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee was entitled to depreciation on bridges. This involved determining ownership and usage for business purposes.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A ” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

For Appellant: Shri. B. T. Shetty, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 18.11.2020Pronounced: 18.11.2020

Assessment APPELLANT RESPONDENT Year 1080/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka Road The Deputy Commissioner 2013-14 Development Corporation Ltd., of Income Tax, No.16/J, 1st Floor, Circle – 4(1)(1), Miller Tank Bed Area, Bengaluru. Thimmaiah Road Cross, Bengaluru – 560 052. PAN : AABCK 2261 R 1081/Bang/2018 The Income Tax Officer, 2014-15 -do- Ward – 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. Appellant by : Shri. B. T. Shetty, CA Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 18.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President These are appeals by the assessee against two orders both dated 28.12.2017 of CIT(A)-4, Bangalore, relating to Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

2.

The only grievance projected by the assessee in the grounds of appeal raised for both the Assessment Years is with regard to action of the Revenue authorities in not allowing depreciation claimed by the assessee on bridges on the ground that the assessee was not the owner of the bridge and also was not using the bridges for the purpose of its business. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee does not want to press the claim of depreciation on bridges. In the circumstances, we dismiss both the appeals of the assessee as not pressed.

3.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this 18th day of November, 2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →