Chairman Rajasthan State Road Transport Co and Others v. Santosh

7 SCC 94Supreme Court of India2005#11808 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 2(28)Section 2(28) of the Act Section 250 Section 250 of the Income Tax Act

Judgments citing Chairman Rajasthan State Road Transport Co and Others v. Santosh

ACIT CIRCLE 3 THANE, THANE vs. SAMARTH LIFTERS PVT LTD, THANE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 2063/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya, Sr. AR

Section 2(28)Section 250

…igher depreciation? C. Whether on the facts and ciroumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman Rajasthan State Road Transport Co and Others Vs. Santosh and others 7 SCC 94 (SC) (2013) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court remarked "as to whether a particular vehicle can be defined as Motor Vehicle in terms of section 2(28) of the Act is to be determined on the facts of each taking into consideration the use of the vehicle and its suitability for being used upon the road" without appreciating the fact that in the asessee's c…

ACIT CIRCLE 3 THANE, THANE vs. SAMARTH LIFTERS PVT LTD, THANE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 2062/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya, Sr. AR

Section 2(28)Section 250

DY CIT CIRCLE-3, , THANE vs. M/S SAMARTH LIFTERS PVT LTD., THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

ITA 6719/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

…vide Instruction No.617 dated 13.09.1973 has even included “forklift” in the category of motor vehicle entitled for higher depreciation of 30%. The Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Chairman Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp and Other-vs-Santosh and Others 7 SCC 94 (SC)(2013) have analyzed the definition of the term motor vehicle to hold even a tractor to be motor vehicle as it is capable of being adapted to run on public roads. 6 M/s. Samarth Lifters Pvt. Ltd. 15. This issue of cranes being entitled for depreciation as a motor lorry has been examined in several judicial proceedings including in the appellan…

DCIT CIR 3, THANE vs. SAMARTH LIFETERS PVT .LTD, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

ITA 6233/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon. & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon.Dcit, Circle-3, Thane, Vs. M/S. Samarth Lifters Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 2, 6Th Floor, B-Wing, Nayan Building, Next B-Wing, Wagle Industrial To Sri Maa Balniketan School, Estate, Road No.16Z, Eastern Express Highway, Thane (W) Kopri, Than (E).

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar – Sr. DR

Section 2(28)

…vide Instruction No.617 dated 13.09.1973 has even included “forklift” in the category of motor vehicle entitled for higher depreciation of 30%. The Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Chairman Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp and Other-vs-Santosh and Others 7 SCC 94 (SC)(2013) have analyzed the definition of the term motor vehicle to hold even a tractor to be motor vehicle as it is capable of being adapted to run on public roads. 15. This issue of cranes being entitled for depreciation as a motor lorry has been examined in several judicial proceedings including in the appellants own case for A.Y.1998-99. The de…

DCIT CIR 3, THANE vs. SAMARTH LIFETERS PVT .LTD, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

ITA 5738/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar – Sr. DR

Section 2(28)

…vide Instruction No.617 dated 13.09.1973 has even included “forklift” in the category of motor vehicle entitled for higher depreciation of 30%. The Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Chairman Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp and Other-vs-Santosh and Others 7 SCC 94 (SC)(2013) have analyzed the definition of the term motor vehicle to hold even a tractor to be motor vehicle as it is capable of being adapted to run on public roads. 15. This issue of cranes being entitled for depreciation as a motor lorry has been examined in several judicial proceedings including in the appellants own case for A.Y.1998-99. The de…

DCIT CIR 3, THANE vs. SAMARTH LIFETERS P.LTD, THANE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2186/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Samarth Lifters Pvt. Ltd., B- Income Tax, Circle-3, Wing, Nayan Building, Next To Sri Vs. Thane, Room No. 02, 6Th Maabalniketan, School, Eastern Floor, Aashar It Park, B- Express Highway, Kopri Thane Wing, Wagle Industrial (E)-400603. Estate, Road No. 16Z, Thane (W)-400604. Pan No. Aaccs6646K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 32

…T, 61 SOT 24 (Kolkata) (2014). (xi) Ansari Holding & Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 12 SOT 0438 (Hyderabad)(2007). (xii) John Energy Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 154 ITD 0451 (Ahmedabad)(2015) (xiii)Chairman Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. & Others-vs Santosh & Others, 7 SCC 94 (SC) (2013) M/s Samarth Lifters Pvt. Ltd. 5 16. In view of the above discussion and considering judicial pronouncements as quoted above we do not find any merit in action of lower authorities for declining higher claim of depreciation at 30% on Crawler Cranes and Dozers.” 5.1 Facts being identical, we follow the above order of the Co-ordinate Benc…

SAMARTH LIFTERS P.LTD,THANE vs. ADDL CIT RG 3, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

ITA 1781/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.1781/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Samarth Lifters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-3, Thane 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Opp. Anand Nagar, Octroi Naka, Road No.16Z, Nayan Building, Wagale Ind. Estate, Next To Maa Niketan Thane (W) School, Pin - 400604 Easter Express Highway Kopri, Thane (W), Pin – 400 603 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs6646K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओय से /Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratna Parakhi याजस्व की ओय से /Revenue By : Shri V. Justin सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2017 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- 2 Mumbai, Dated 16.01.2015, For The Assessment Year 2011-12, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T. Act. 2. The Only Grievance Of Assessee Relates To Disallowance Of Depreciation On Crawler Cranes & Dozers @ 30%. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused.

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratna ParakhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143(3)Section 2(28)

…vide Instruction No.617 dated 13.09.1973 has even included “forklift” in the category of motor vehicle entitled for higher depreciation of 30%. The Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Chairman Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp and Other-vs-Santosh and Others 7 SCC 94 (SC)(2013) have analyzed the definition of the term motor vehicle to hold even a tractor to be motor vehicle as it is capable of being adapted to run on public roads. 7 15. This issue of cranes being entitled for depreciation as a motor lorry has been examined in several judicial proceedings including in the appellants own case for A.Y.1998-99. The…

MADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. vs. COMMNR OF CENTRAL EXCISE&CUSTOMS, DAMAN

C.A. No.-003626-003626 - 2005Supreme Court14 Jan 2011

Section 18Section 27Section 35

…Ltd. v. CCE (1995) 3 SCC 23, Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 767 and Cadila Laboratories (P) Ltd. v. CCE (2003) 4 SCC 12” 21) In Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Co. Ltd. vs. Collector of Excise and Customs, (2005) 7 SCC 94, it was held that unless the product is capable of being marketed and is known to those who are in the market, as having an identity as a distinct and identifiable commodity, that the article is subject to excise duty. Simply because certain articles fall within the Schedule does not make them marketable. Actual sale in m…

BATA INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

C.A. No.-002377-002377 - 2002Supreme Court12 Apr 2010

Bench: The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (For Short ‘The Tribunal). The Member (Judicial) Took The View That The Product Would Not

Section 2

…ral Excise, Bombay (1997) 2 SCC 677; Union of India vs. Sonic Electrochem (P) Ltd. (2002) 7 SCC 435; Cipla Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore 2008 (225) ELT 403 (SC).; Gujarat Nermada Valley Fert. Co. Ltd. vs. Collector of Ex.& Cus.(2005) 7 SCC 94. 11. Mr. V. Sekhar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, contended that the materials produced by the Revenue would be sufficient to hold that the product in question is a distinct product having commercial identity and is capable of being marketed. Learned counsel submitted that by the proc…