DCIT, CEN. CIR-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PARIJAT VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that dumpers and tippers used in construction business for lifting and transporting earth are considered machinery eligible for higher depreciation. The decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Mahaling Setty & Co. was relied upon.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed depreciation at 30% on dumpers and tippers, while the AO allowed only 15%. The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow depreciation at 30%, following various High Court judgments.
What were the issues?
Whether dumpers and tippers used in construction are eligible for depreciation at 30% as machinery, or should be restricted to 15%.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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.
- CIT v. Mahaling Setty & Co.3 citing195 ITR 526 · 1992 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM]
ORDER
Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM
This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-9, Kolkata dated 30.07.2015 for AY 2010-11.
The sole issue involved in this appeal of revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) in allowing depreciation on dumpers and tippers @ 30% as against depreciation @15% allowed by the AO. 3. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and carefully perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 30% on dumper and tipper. In earlier two assessment years the assessee also claimed depreciation @ 30% which was not allowed by the Revenue Authority. Based on the same facts and circumstances, the AO disallowed 15% excess depreciation in this year. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who directed the AO to allow depreciation @ 30% on dumper and tipper by following various judgments of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Aggrieved, revenue is now in appeal before us. We note that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court “INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE — ELIGIBILITY FOR ALLOWANCE — MACHINERY MUST BE OWNED AND WHOLLY USED FOR PURPOSES OF BUSINESS — PURPOSE OF BUSINESS INCLUDES EVERY ACTIVITY NECESSARY TO CARRY ON BUSINESS — BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION WORK — DUMPERS AND TIPPERS USED TO LIFT EARTH AND TRANSPORT SAME — RESULT IN PRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE OR THING — ARE MACHINERY ENTITLED TO INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE — "THINGS", "ARTICLES", MEANING OF — INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, SECTION 32A The word "thing" is shown in Earl Jowitt's Dictionary as meaning "the subject of dominion or property as distinguished from persons". There are three things: things real or immovable, comprehending lands, tenements and hereditaments; things personal or movable, comprehending goods and chattels, and things mixed; partaking of the characteristics of the former two, as a title deed. The civil law divided things into corporeal and incorporeal. The incorporeal items like debts would be things. Therefore, the word "things" comprehends incorporeal assets also. The term "article" is not confined to movable property only under section 32A of the Income- tax Act, 1961. Investment allowance is granted, inter alia, in respect of machinery or plant specified in sub-section (2) of section 32A which is owned by the assessee and is wholly used for the purpose of business carried on by the assessee. The purpose of business includes every activity which is necessary to carry on the business. It is not the final touches involved in a construction work that result in the carrying on of the business. The various activities from the beginning to the end will be part of the business. Machine used in the business of construction is eligible for investment allowance as is clear from section 32A(2)(b)(iii). The phrase "the business of construction is wide and, normally, a business of construction involves construction of buildings, dams, roads, channels, etc. Machinery which is necessary for business of construction involving several activities cannot be held as not contemplated by Parliament as covered for the purpose of investment allowance. The words and phrases used in a statute will have to be understood in the context in which they are used. Clause (b) in the second proviso to section 32A has to be read in the setting in which other clauses (a), (c) and (d) are used. Specially, clauses (a) and (b) in the second proviso make it clear that exclusion from the provision is only in respect of the machinery or plant or appliances connected with the administrative part of the business, i.e., those used in the office premises or residential accommodation of the assessee. Naturally, road transport vehicles referred to therein will have to be such vehicles which are made to carry the employees to the office and back home. The words "road transport vehicles" include vehicles like omnibuses, cars, etc., and not dumpers and tippers which are directly used in the activity of the business, at the place where the business is actually carried on. Dumpers and tippers are essentially machinery used to carry on a construction work. Therefore, the use of dumpers and tippers for the purpose of business of construction, i.e., used to lift earth and transport the same, results in the production of an article or thing and such machinery is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Act.
3 Parijat Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., AY, 2010-11 The issue before us has been answered by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka (supra), so, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing depreciation @ 30% on dumper and tipper. Therefore, we uphold the same. This appeal of revenue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 18th October, 2017 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A. L. Saini) (Aby. T. Varkey) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 18th October, 2017 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. 1. Appellant – DCIT, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata Respondent – M/s. Parijat Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., 5th floor, 12A, Netaji 2 Subhas Road, Kolkata-700 001..
3. The CIT(A), Kolkata 4. CIT , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata /True Copy, By order,
Sr. Pvt. Secretary
More judgments on Section 32A
- S. Rajendran vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…C.A. No.-007140 - 202224 Feb 2026
- The Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/S Surjit and Surindera InvestigationITA/198/200215 Oct 2025
- DCIT., Circle-13(1), Hyderabad vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited…ITA 307/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
- Singareni Collieries Company Limited… vs DCIT., Circle-13(1), HyderabadITA 285/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
- DCIT., Circle-13(1), Hyderabad vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited…ITA 308/HYD/2024[AY-2020-2]Status: Disposed12 Jun 2025
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026