CIT v. J. K. Transport

133 ITR 884High Court1982#9212 most cited

What is CIT v. J. K. Transport authority for?

The expression 'used' in relation to assets for tax purposes can be interpreted to mean 'ready for use', not necessarily actual user. This interpretation can extend even to periods of non-user for a number of years.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. J. K. Transport · section 32(1) · ready for use · actual user · depreciation · block of assets · written down value

Issues it is cited on

section 41(2)ready for useconstruction pesection 2(11)section 43(6)commercial rightsemployees contribution to pfwritten down valueblock of assetssection 32(1)short term capital gainsenduring benefit

Judgments citing CIT v. J. K. Transport

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3357/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…limits of non-user for number of years. 22. We may point out at this stage that some of the High Courts have taken the view that the expression 'used' should mean actual user [See CIT v. J. K. Transport [1998] 231 ITR 798 (MP), CIT v. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. [1982] 133 ITR 884 229 ITR 548 (Guj.), Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 15 ITAs No.3725, 5467, 5468/Del/2015 ITAs No.3354, 2719, 2798, 3355, 3356, 3357 & 2884/Del/2016 (Ker.), Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 768 (Bom.)]. Though we are subscribing in view of the judgments of our own High Court, at the same time we would not like to g…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3356/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…limits of non-user for number of years. 22. We may point out at this stage that some of the High Courts have taken the view that the expression 'used' should mean actual user [See CIT v. J. K. Transport [1998] 231 ITR 798 (MP), CIT v. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. [1982] 133 ITR 884 229 ITR 548 (Guj.), Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 15 ITAs No.3725, 5467, 5468/Del/2015 ITAs No.3354, 2719, 2798, 3355, 3356, 3357 & 2884/Del/2016 (Ker.), Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 768 (Bom.)]. Though we are subscribing in view of the judgments of our own High Court, at the same time we would not like to g…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3355/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…limits of non-user for number of years. 22. We may point out at this stage that some of the High Courts have taken the view that the expression 'used' should mean actual user [See CIT v. J. K. Transport [1998] 231 ITR 798 (MP), CIT v. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. [1982] 133 ITR 884 229 ITR 548 (Guj.), Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 15 ITAs No.3725, 5467, 5468/Del/2015 ITAs No.3354, 2719, 2798, 3355, 3356, 3357 & 2884/Del/2016 (Ker.), Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 768 (Bom.)]. Though we are subscribing in view of the judgments of our own High Court, at the same time we would not like to g…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 5468/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…limits of non-user for number of years. 22. We may point out at this stage that some of the High Courts have taken the view that the expression 'used' should mean actual user [See CIT v. J. K. Transport [1998] 231 ITR 798 (MP), CIT v. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. [1982] 133 ITR 884 229 ITR 548 (Guj.), Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 15 ITAs No.3725, 5467, 5468/Del/2015 ITAs No.3354, 2719, 2798, 3355, 3356, 3357 & 2884/Del/2016 (Ker.), Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 768 (Bom.)]. Though we are subscribing in view of the judgments of our own High Court, at the same time we would not like to g…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 5467/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…limits of non-user for number of years. 22. We may point out at this stage that some of the High Courts have taken the view that the expression 'used' should mean actual user [See CIT v. J. K. Transport [1998] 231 ITR 798 (MP), CIT v. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. [1982] 133 ITR 884 229 ITR 548 (Guj.), Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 15 ITAs No.3725, 5467, 5468/Del/2015 ITAs No.3354, 2719, 2798, 3355, 3356, 3357 & 2884/Del/2016 (Ker.), Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 768 (Bom.)]. Though we are subscribing in view of the judgments of our own High Court, at the same time we would not like to g…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(2), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S S. Kumar, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 362/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: 10/05/2022For Respondent: Bhavna Yashroy, CIT.DR

…venue came before us and stated that learned CIT(A) ought to have confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1,66,90,000/- on account of depreciation claimed on windmill. The learned CIT.D.R. Bhavna Yashroy cited judgment in the case of CIT vs. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. [1982] 133 ITR 884 (Guj) wherein it is held that depreciation is allowable when assessee has started its business, only then assessee can claim the depreciation. The learned CIT.D.R. also cited a judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in case of Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal [2004] 141 TAXMAN 62 (Bom.) wherein it is held that: “If the vehicle was not…

ACIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela vs. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 373/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

For Appellant: Shri S.C. BhadraFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(3)

…cisions, wherein, it was held that before claiming the depreciation, the assessee had to show the actual use of machines. i) Dineshkumar Gulabchand AgarwalCIT vs (267 ITR 768) II) Joit Kumar Jain (48 taxmann.com 240) (ITAT, Mumbai) iii) CIT vs J.K.Transport, 231 ITR 798 (MP) 32. Replying to above, ld AR supported the order of the ld CIT(A). Ld AR submitted that the assessee has installed the beneficiation plant in the P a g e 23 | 62 ITA No.366/CTK/2018 C.O. No.01/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 mining area, which was used by the contractor M/s. Triveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd., and for this purpose, the assesse…

Smt. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela vs. ACIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

For Appellant: Shri S.C. BhadraFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(3)

…cisions, wherein, it was held that before claiming the depreciation, the assessee had to show the actual use of machines. i) Dineshkumar Gulabchand AgarwalCIT vs (267 ITR 768) II) Joit Kumar Jain (48 taxmann.com 240) (ITAT, Mumbai) iii) CIT vs J.K.Transport, 231 ITR 798 (MP) 32. Replying to above, ld AR supported the order of the ld CIT(A). Ld AR submitted that the assessee has installed the beneficiation plant in the P a g e 23 | 62 ITA No.366/CTK/2018 C.O. No.01/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 mining area, which was used by the contractor M/s. Triveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd., and for this purpose, the assesse…

The ITO, Cor.WD-1, Kochi vs. Bhagheeratha Engineering Limited, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 500/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 32(1)

…01/Coch/2018 asset was not actually used in course of business during relevant assessment year. The Ld. AR relied on the following case laws: 1) Whittle Enderson Ltd. vs. CIT (79 ITR 613) 2) CIT vs. Khanna & Sons (148 ITR 558) 3) CIT vs. Suhrid Gegy Ltd. (133 ITR 884) 4) Swati Synthetics Ltd. vs. ITO (38 SOT 208) (Mum.) 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. In our opinion, the assessee has to prove the ownership as well as having physical possession of the said machinery and vehicles. The argument of the Ld. AR does not support that the assessee physically owned and was having contr…

M/S. Business India Television International Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03 is dismissed; whereas the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment

ITA 1358/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O. P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Subhakant Sahu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…e to lock out, depreciation cannot be allowed. Reliance is also placed on the decisions in Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 25 ITR 265(SC); DCIT vs. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital (2007) 159 Taxman 58/290 ITR 353 (Kar.) and CIT vs. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. (1982) 133 ITR 884 (Guj.)/CIT vs. Jiwaji Rao Sugar Co. Ltd. (1969) 71 ITR 319 (MP) (app.)” 12 I.T.A. No.4371, 4419/Del/2010 & 1358/Del/2013 16. The brief facts qua the aforesaid ground are that assessee company has claimed depreciation of Rs.59,99,297/- on plant and machinery and Rs.36,395/- on distribution equipment. The Assessing Officer from the perusal of aud…

Smt. Maitreyee Das, Purba Medinipur vs. I.to WD - 1, Haldia

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 780/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.780/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.L.Bhowmick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dinabandhu Naskar, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…t case. On the contrary, it has been held in several cases that merely keeping an asset ready for use is not sufficient for claiming depreciation. Some such decisions are in the cases of CIT vs Jivaji Rao Sugar Company Ltd 71 ITR 319 (MP), CIT vs JK Transport 231 ITR 798 (MP), CIT vs Maps Tours and Travels 260 ITR 655 (Mad.), Dinesh kumar Gulabchand Agarwal vs CIT 267 ITR 768 (Bom.), CIT vs. Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. 206 ITR 682 (CaL), DCIT Vs Yellamma Dasappa Hospital 290 ITR 353 (Kar.). In particular, the case of Dinesh kumar Gulabchand Agarwal (supra) specifically dealt with issue of depreciation on trucks kept r…

Commisioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd

ITA-161/2006HC Delhi24 Dec 2010

…o use‟, the same is stretched to the limits of non- user for number of years. 22. We may point out at this stage that some of the High Courts have taken the view that the expression „used‟ should mean actual user 2010:DHC:6288-DB Gelgy Ltd. [133 ITR 884 (Guj.)], Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [229 ITR 548 (Kar).], Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal Vs. CIT [267 ITR 768 (Bom.)]). Though we are subscribing in view of the judgments of our own High Court, at the same time we would not like to give the expression a meaning which would make the provision superfluous. 23. Mr. C.S. Agga…