CIT v. Nidish Transport Corporation

185 ITR 669High Court1990#15157 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Nidish Transport Corporation

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Income Tax Department vs. S D Material Handlers Private Limited, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 499/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.499/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Vs. 405-408, Shivalik Western, L.P. Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Savani Road, Adajan Adajan Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Bo, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd 3481B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…though the same were not registered in its name under the Motor Vehicles Act and that it was entitled to depreciation in respect thereof. 9. To the same effect is the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Nidish Transport Corporation [1990] 185 ITR 669. In this case also the sole question for determination was whether the assessees were entitled to depreciation on certain vehicles used by them in their business though the vehicles purchased by the assessees had not been transferred in their names in the certificate of registration. The contention of the revenue in this case also was that till t…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir. -4, Surat vs. Shri Hiteshkumar Laljibhai Patel, Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by revenue is dismissed

ITA 295/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.295/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Shri Hiteshkumar Laljibhai Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat, Room Patel, 52, Narayanmuni Nagar Vs No.508, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Society, Nani Ved Road, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395004 Pan Aanpp 3560 B 395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 198Section 254(1)

…e, copy of return of income with balance-sheet of partner along with intimation of order u/s 143(1) of firm. The assessee also relied on certain case law including decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs Nidish Transport Corporation (1990) 185 ITR 669 (Kerala), wherein it was held that for transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle, mutation of the name in the certificate of registration was not necessary and the vehicle could be sold and purchased without following the procedure prescribed under section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was held that assessee was owner of the vehicle and they…

Raji Kanniyappan, Chennai vs. ITO Ward XI(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 565/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT

Section 112Section 31

…page 12 of the paper-book, the Ld.counsel submitted that the assessee purchased a lorry bearing registration No.KA 01 C-4267 on 09.06.2009 for a sum of ₹13,85,000/-. Referring to the judgment of Kerala High Court in CIT v. Nidish Transport Corporation (1990) 185 ITR 669, the Ld.counsel submitted that transfer of registration is not necessary for transfer of ownership of motor vehicle. According to the Ld. counsel, transfer takes effect when the motor vehicle 3 I.T.A. No.565/Chny/18 was handed over to the assessee. Even before the transfer is effected in the registration certificate, the assessee used the vehi…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Abhay Cotex Pvt. Ltd., Jalna

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1423/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1423/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kaul & Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha

Section 115JSection 32

…r view was taken in the case of CIT Vs, Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali(No.2), 256 ITR357(Raj), CIT Vs Fazilka Dabwali TPT Co. Ltd. (2004) 270 ITR 398 (P&H), CIT v. Salkia Transport Associates [1983] 143 ITR 39/13 Taxman 191 (Cal.), CIT v. Nidish Transport Corpn. [1910] 185 ITR 669/[1989] 44 Taxman 351(Ker.), CIT v. Dilip Singh Bagga [1993] 201ITR 995/[1994] 77 Taxman 66(Bom.), CIT v. Navdurga Transport Co. [1999] 235 ITR 158 (All.) and CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. [2002] 257 ITR 88/123 Taxman 693 (Delhi)as also by the ITAT in their decision in the case of The Curious House (P) Ltd. v ITO (1980) 9 TTJ 348(Indore) and I…

Sanjay G Vadodaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4419/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Sanjay G. Vadodaria, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 29/B Roop Kamal 426, S.V. 25(3)(4), Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400067 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepv9502A यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Mrs. Zarna P. Chandwani & Mr. Pradeep Chandwani याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Vishwas Mundhe-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

Section 32oSection 42

….) held that, where it is found that the assessee is not the owner of the asset in respect of which depreciation is claimed, the assessee is not entitled to claim such depreciation. However, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs Nidish Transport Corporation 185 ITR 669 (Kerala), wherein ,the motor vehicle was purchased by the assessee, use for business purposes, but not registered in the name of the assessee, the assessee was held to be entitled for depreciation. Identical ratio was laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Dilip Singh S. Bagga (1993) 201 ITR 995 (Bom.), CIT vs Mirza Ataulla Baig…

Kedia Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Kedia Shares & Stock Acit, Brokers Limited, Circle-4(3), बनाम/ 418, Commerce House, Room No.649, 6Th Floor, Vs. 140, Nagindas Master Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400023 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaack2528E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 32oSection 42

…sed by submitting that the impugned issue is covered by the decision from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Mirza Attaulla Baig & Ors. (202 ITR 291) (Bom.), CIT vs Salkia Transport Associates 143 ITR 39 (Cal.) and CIT vs Nidish Transport Corporation 185 ITR 669 (Kerala). 2.1. On the other hand, Shri M. Murli, defended the conclusion, arrived at in the assessment order/impugned order by contending that the director is not the owner of the motor car, therefore, the claim of depreciation was rightly rejected. 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The…