CIT v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation

253 ITR 303High Court2002#9819 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 80A(6)Section 80IASection 80IA(8)

Judgments citing CIT v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation

LORAMITRA RATH,KAIRAPARI KOTSAHI, TANGI vs. DCIT (CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

The appeal is allowed

ITA 314/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 48

…1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) CIT vs. 5 Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) 9 CIT vs. A. Gajapathy Naidu 53 ITR 114(SC) CIT vs. 5 Ahmedbhai Umarbhay & Co. 18 ITR 472 (SC) 10 CIT vs. Ahmedbhai Umarbhay & Co. 18 ITR 472 (SC) 5 11 CIT vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corpn.253 ITR 303 (Punj. & 5 Har.) 12 CIT Vs. Crawford Bayley & Co., 106 ITR 884 (Bom.) 23 P a g e 4 | 59 Assessment Year : 2015-16 13 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chetnavis (SM) AIR 1932 1 PC 178 14 DCIT vs. T. Jayachandran [2018] 406 ITR 1 (SC) 13 15 Dy.CIT v. Mrs. Lakshmi M.Aiyar (2011) 131 1TD 436 11 (Mum) 16 E. D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1954] 26 ITR…

SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 258/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…R 12, has held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation allowance on the cold storage plant though the machinery had not actually worked during the accounting period. 6. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation [2002] 253 ITR 303 has held that the assessee who was the transporter had to keep spare engines in the store, was entitled for depreciation on spare engines in the store, as the engines were meant to be used in the case of need. There is a normal depreciation of value even when machines or equipment is merely kept in the store. Looking to the nature of business of…

SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 257/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…R 12, has held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation allowance on the cold storage plant though the machinery had not actually worked during the accounting period. 6. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation [2002] 253 ITR 303 has held that the assessee who was the transporter had to keep spare engines in the store, was entitled for depreciation on spare engines in the store, as the engines were meant to be used in the case of need. There is a normal depreciation of value even when machines or equipment is merely kept in the store. Looking to the nature of business of…

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…Nahar Exports Ltd. 163 Taxman 518 (P&H) reiterated that even where the machinery is kept ready 64 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. for use, depreciation is admissible under Section 32 of the Act. Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT v. Pepsu Road Transport Corpn: 253 ITR 303 held that depreciation claimed by a transport undertaking on spare engines kept in store for use in the case of need, could not be disallowed on the ground that the same were not used by assessee. Hence, following these two direct jurisdictional High Court decisions, depreciation should be allowed to the Assessee.” 92. The Departmental Represent…

M/S. KLA INDIA PUBLIC LTD.,DELHI vs. JCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3332/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

…n use when it is kept ready for use. CIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. 206 CTR 141 (P&H) "As regards first question in ITA No 1360/Chd/1987, reliance is placed on judgment of this Court in CIT v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation(2002) 172 CTR (P&H) 72: (2002) 253 ITR 303 (P&H) taking the view that the machinery which is kept ready for use but may not be actually used, will qualify for normal depreciation as there is normal depreciation of value even when a machine is merely kept in a store. It is pointed out that this judgment has been followed by the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Swarup Vegetable Products India…

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

ITTA/102/2012HC Telangana24 Jul 2013

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24(1)(i)Section 32Section 43B

…was allowable on entire block of assets in second year even though such flats were lying vacant and not put to use during the year in question. The claim is also supported by the Punjab & Haryana Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pepsee Road Transport Corporation 253 ITR 303, CIT Vs. Refrigeration and Allied Industries Limited 113 TAXMAN 103 (Del) and CIT Vs. M/s. G.N. Agrawal (1994) 75 ΤΑΧΜΑΝ 30 (Bom). So, in view of all aforesaid facts and case laws relied by the appellant; I am of the view that Assessing Officer was not correct in denying 50% depreciation to the appellant he is directed to allow the full claim of…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INSILCO LTD.

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA/873/2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The „Cit(A)‟] Allowing Deduction On Account Of Provision Made By

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…tion 32 of the Act brings within its ambit even ITA 873/2008 & 1156/2008 Page 11 of 25 „passive user‟ for claim of depreciation. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee were CIT vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation; (2002) 253 ITR 303 (P&H), CIT vs Southern Petro Chemical Industries Corporation Ltd; (2007) 292 ITR 362 (Mad), Capital Bus Service (P.) Ltd vs CIT; (1980) 123 ITR 404 (Del), CIT vs Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd; (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del) and lastly CIT vs Swarup Vegetable Products India Ltd; (2005) 277 ITR 60(All). 15. The learned counsel for the asse…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, NEW DELHI vs. INSILCO LIMITED

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA-1156/2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:678-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…port his submission that Section 32 of the Act brings within its ambit even 2009:DHC:678-DB „passive user‟ for claim of depreciation. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee were CIT vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation; (2002) 253 ITR 303 (P&H), CIT vs Southern Petro Chemical Industries Corporation Ltd; (2007) 292 ITR 362 (Mad), Capital Bus Service (P.) Ltd vs CIT; (1980) 123 ITR 404 (Del), CIT vs Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd; (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del) and lastly CIT vs Swarup Vegetable Products India Ltd; (2005) 277 ITR 60(All). 15. The learned counsel for the asse…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, NEW DELHI vs. INSILCO LIMITED

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA-873/2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:679-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…port his submission that Section 32 of the Act brings within its ambit even 2009:DHC:679-DB „passive user‟ for claim of depreciation. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee were CIT vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation; (2002) 253 ITR 303 (P&H), CIT vs Southern Petro Chemical Industries Corporation Ltd; (2007) 292 ITR 362 (Mad), Capital Bus Service (P.) Ltd vs CIT; (1980) 123 ITR 404 (Del), CIT vs Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd; (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del) and lastly CIT vs Swarup Vegetable Products India Ltd; (2005) 277 ITR 60(All). 15. The learned counsel for the asse…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INSILCO LIMITED

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA - 1156 / 2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:678-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…port his submission that Section 32 of the Act brings within its ambit even 2009:DHC:678-DB „passive user‟ for claim of depreciation. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee were CIT vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation; (2002) 253 ITR 303 (P&H), CIT vs Southern Petro Chemical Industries Corporation Ltd; (2007) 292 ITR 362 (Mad), Capital Bus Service (P.) Ltd vs CIT; (1980) 123 ITR 404 (Del), CIT vs Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd; (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del) and lastly CIT vs Swarup Vegetable Products India Ltd; (2005) 277 ITR 60(All). 15. The learned counsel for the asse…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INSILCO LTD.

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA - 873 / 2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:679-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…port his submission that Section 32 of the Act brings within its ambit even 2009:DHC:679-DB „passive user‟ for claim of depreciation. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee were CIT vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation; (2002) 253 ITR 303 (P&H), CIT vs Southern Petro Chemical Industries Corporation Ltd; (2007) 292 ITR 362 (Mad), Capital Bus Service (P.) Ltd vs CIT; (1980) 123 ITR 404 (Del), CIT vs Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd; (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del) and lastly CIT vs Swarup Vegetable Products India Ltd; (2005) 277 ITR 60(All). 15. The learned counsel for the asse…