CIT v. Salkia Transport Associates

143 ITR 39High Court1983#13420 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. Salkia Transport Associates

Raja Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT 27(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3081/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 32

…n'ble Court has also referred and relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga reported in 201 ITR 995 and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Salkia Transport Associates reported in 143 ITR 39. 8. A sequitur that emerges from the catena of judicial pronouncements is that registration under the Regional Transport Office, though statutorily mandated under the Motor Vehicles Act, does not constitute a sine qua non for claiming depreciation under the Income Tax Act. Jurisprudence has consistently held that ownership, for the limited purpose…

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)

…the relevant time. Read in this context, it was held that the assessee owned the machinery in question and was entitled to depreciation. 8. Reference may also be made to another decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Salkia Transport Associates [1983] 143 ITR 39. The dispute in this case was somewhat similar to the dispute in the case before us. Here also depreciation was claimed by the assessee in respect of motor vehicles claimed to be owned by it though not registered under the Motor Vehicles Act in its name. The Calcutta High Court held that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, do not preve…

Sehgal Autoriders Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 10, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 162/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Pune25 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.162/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sehgal Autoriders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle- 10, D-Ii, 64/6, Midc Telco Road, Pune. Chinchwad, Pune- 411019. Pan : Aafcs2240A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rishi V. Lodha Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing 25.01.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 25.01.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 6, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Hon. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals), Pune-6 Erred In Disallowing The Depreciation Claimed For The Cars Used By The Directors For Official Work Of The Company But Ownership Documents In The Name Of Individual Director. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals), Pune-6 Erred In Disallowing The Interest Paid On The Purchase Of Cars.

For Appellant: Shri Rishi V. LodhaFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)

…rship as envisaged under the provisions of section 32 of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 5 case of I.C.D.S. Ltd. vs. CIT, 29 taxmann.com 129 (SC). Further, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Salkia Transport Associates, 143 ITR 39 (Cal.-HC) held that there is no requirement under the provisions of section 32 that in order to avail the depreciation, an assessee should be registered the ownership of the vehicle. On the similar lines, the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Navdurga Transport Co., 235 ITR 158 (All.-HC) and the decision of the Ho…

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

…used the three vehicles within the meaning of s. 32 of the Act. Similar 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…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aagam Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1762/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1762/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: -None-

…td. vs. CIT 239 ITR 775(SC). (iv) CIT vs. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625. (v) SBC (P) Ltd. in ITA No.6 (Bom) 1974-75, ITAT, Bombay (vi)Mohamed BuxShokat Ali 256 ITR 355 (Raj.) (vii) CIT vs. Salkia Transport Associates (1983) 33 CTR (Cal) 198: 1983) 143 ITR 39 (Cal): TC 27R.266 (viii) Continental Construction Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 85 CTR (Del) 116: DCIT vs. Aagam Infrabuild Pvt.Ltd. Asst.Year – 2012-13 (1990) 185 ITR 178 (Del) : TC 26R.532, CIT vs. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga (1993) 201 ITR 995 (Bom) : and CIT vs Mirza Ataullaha Baig & Anr. (1993) 202 ITR 291 (Bom): TC 27R.217. Factually, the vehicles…

Premeshwar Creations P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6852/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Permeshwar Creations Dcit-8(2), Pvt. Ltd. Room No.209, बनाम/ Plot No.52, 7Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Midc Marol, M.K. Road, Andheri(E), Churchgate, Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcp3517F

Section 32

…hat there is no requirement that the assessee should continue to hold the depreciable asset till the end of relevant previous year or in other words, remains owner of the depreciable asset for entire previous year. In CIT vs Salkia Transport Associates (1983) 143 ITR 39 (Kal.), wherein, buses were taken on hire and had to be replaced by the assessee at its own cost by new buses, which were registered in the name of the original owner. The assessee was held to be the owner of the asset concern. In another decision following the decision from Delhi High Court in Addl. CIT vs General Industries Corporation (1985) 15…

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

…, advanced arguments which are identical to the ground raised 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 subm…