CIT v. S.C. Takur & Brothers

322 ITR 252Reported decision#4846 most cited

What is CIT v. S.C. Takur & Brothers authority for?

The Bombay High Court ruled that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) relied on Circular No. 609 and the decision in CIT v. S.C. Takur & Brothers to disallow depreciation exceeding 15% on motor vehicles, implicitly acknowledging a specific interpretation of depreciation claims for certain vehicles.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S.C. Takur & Brothers · 322 ITR 252 · depreciation · motor vehicles · 50% depreciation · commercial vehicles · Bombay High Court · Circular No. 609 · Section 44

Sections most often in play

Section 115-OSection 115JBSection 194HSection 195Section 237Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(i)Section 44

Issues it is cited on

stay of demandsection 237section 211agency peservice pesection 195(1)opening wdvsection 9(1)(i)section 195(2)section 115jb(2)ddtsection 194h

Judgments citing CIT v. S.C. Takur & Brothers

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1759/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…w motor vehicles acquired and put to use after certain dates. However, the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) has relied upon Circular No. 609 dated 29.07.1991 and judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs S.C. Takur & Brothers 322 ITR 252 and disallowed excess claim of depreciation over and above normal depreciation of 15% applicable to general category. The learned Sr. counsel further submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Birla Global Asset Finance Co. Ltd. in ITA No.828 of 2010 dated 08.08.2012 has held that the assessee was entitled to claim deprec…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1676/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…w motor vehicles acquired and put to use after certain dates. However, the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) has relied upon Circular No. 609 dated 29.07.1991 and judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs S.C. Takur & Brothers 322 ITR 252 and disallowed excess claim of depreciation over and above normal depreciation of 15% applicable to general category. The learned Sr. counsel further submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Birla Global Asset Finance Co. Ltd. in ITA No.828 of 2010 dated 08.08.2012 has held that the assessee was entitled to claim deprec…

Athashri Foundation, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (E) -II(2), Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 6590/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6590/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Athashri Foundation Assistant Director Of Income Tax 101, Somnath, Cts No.988 [Exemption]-Ii(2) बनाम/ Ram Mandir Road, Piramal Chamber Vs. Vile Parle (E) Lalbaug Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaata-8602-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenueby : Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.Dr Assessee By : Yogesh Thar & Hardik Nirmal, Ld.Ar’S सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar & Hardik NirmalFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 25

…ble Apex Court have held that the party has to show reason for delay on the last date of limitation and thereafter for each day since condonation is not a matter of right. In the case of Ornet Properties vs. ITO [312 ITR 193] and CIT vs. Reliance Capital Ltd [322 ITR 252], it was held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court that inordinate delay in filing appeal are not condoned since dormant claims cannot be given new life. The Hon’ble High Court further clarified that those who sleep over their rights for a prolonged period cannot claim equity in justice. Further in the case of Airlines Rotables Ltd. 54 taxmann. Com 288 H…

Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai

ITA 5073/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainreliance Industries Ltd. Maker Chambers, Iv, 3Rd Floor, 222,Nariman Point, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400021 Pan-Aaacr5055K V/S

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai-CIT-DR
Section 11Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 80H

…x Court have held that the party has to show reason for delay on the last date of limitation and thereafter for each day since condonation is not a matter of right Further in the case of Ornet Properties vs. ITO [312 ITR 193] and CIT vs. Reliance Capital Ltd [322 ITR 252], it was held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court: that inordinate delay in ITA no.5073/Mum./2017 Reliance Industries Limited filing appeal are not condoned since dormant claims cannot he given new life. The Hon'ble High Court further clarified that those who sleep over their rights for a prolonged period cannot claim equity iii justice. Also in the cas…