JHARKHAND ROAD PROJECTS IMPLEMENTATION COMPANY LIMITED,RANCHI vs. DCIT,C.C.-1, RANCHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that for subsequent Assessment Years (2015-16 onwards), the revenue accepted the claim for depreciation at 10% by treating the 'Project Road' as a building. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 10%.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in constructing roads under Build, Own, and Transfer (BOT) agreements, claimed depreciation on 'Project Road' as plant and machinery. The Assessing Officer disallowed this, treating the cost as amortizable over the concession period, and the CIT(A) upheld this decision.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the 'Project Road' as plant and machinery or building, and at what rate.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
32(1)(i) of the Act, 32(1)(ii) of the Act, Section 32 of the Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- PCIT v. GVK Jaipur Expressway13 citing100 Taxmann.com 96 · 2018 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
PER: BENCH
These appeals by the assessee are directed against the two separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] both dated 12/12/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. These appeals of the assessee are having common facts and grounds, therefore, with the consent of parties, both these appeals are clubbed and heard together and being decided by this consolidated order. For appreciation of facts, we take ITA No. 92/Ran/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 as a lead case. In this appeal, the assessee has raised fol
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Jharkhand Road Projects Implementation Co… vs DCIT Cent. Circle-1, RanchiRanchi7 Apr 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. GVK Jaipur Expressway
The Tribunal noted that for subsequent Assessment Years (2015-16 onwards), the revenue accepted the claim for depreciation at 10% by treating the 'Project Road' as a building. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Tri...
- Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs Andhra Pradesh Expressway Ltd, MumbaiMumbai25 Aug 2023Partly Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. GVK Jaipur Expressway
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to treat interest income earned on fixed deposits as 'Income from Business', following its own previous order. The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeals...
- DCIT, Chennai vs M/S. Tamil Nadu Road Development…Chennai12 Sept 2019Dismissed
Also relies on PCIT v. GVK Jaipur Expressway
The Tribunal held that depreciation on roads can be claimed under the category of 'building' based on earlier decisions in the assessee's own case and a Supreme Court judgment. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
- Nk Toll Road Ltd., Mumbai vs D.C.I.T. - 15(2)(1), MumbaiMumbai24 Apr 2019Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. GVK Jaipur Expressway
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for depreciation was based on a possible view supported by judicial pronouncements available at the time. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
- Mahindra Navistar Automotives Ltd, Pune vs DCIT 2(2)Mumbai13 May 2016Partly Allowed
Also decided under Section 32(1)(i) with the same outcome
The tribunal held that development expenditure is capital in nature and eligible for depreciation, not deduction. Regarding service coupon commission, the matter was remanded to the AO to allow the assessee to prove it i...
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
