North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. v. CIT

372 ITR 145High Court2015#3750 most cited

What is North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Depreciation is not allowable on toll roads constructed under Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) arrangements as the assessee does not acquire ownership of the road and the right to collect toll is merely a contractual right, not an intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii).

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

North Karnataka Expressway Ltd v CIT · 372 ITR 145 · section 32(1)(ii) · depreciation on toll roads · BOT arrangements · ownership · intangible asset · contractual right · commercial rights · West Gujarat Expressway Ltd · Thiruvananthapuram Road Development Company Limited

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(ii)Section 115JBSection 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 32Section 119

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)(i)section 32(1)(ii)infrastructure facilitycommercial rightsintangible assetsenduring benefitsection 32(1)unabsorbed depreciationsection 32malabar industrialbook profitschange of opinion

Judgments citing North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. v. CIT

BSCPL AURANG TOLLWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 612/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the provisions of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and, after 22 BSCPL Aurang Tollway Limited referring to various judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Limited Vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 145, has clearly held that, the right to collect toll revenue as per the concession agreement does not give rise to any intangible asset or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature as defined under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and thus the assessee cannot claim depreciation. The Ld. CIT-DR, further referring to the decision of ITAT…

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ROAD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT - 6, MUMBAI

ITA 2778/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ndition and the binding judicial precedents, could not be equated with proper enquiry. Thiruvananthapuram Road Development Company Limited :- 6 -: The Ld. DR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. v. CIT (372 ITR 145), wherein it was held that depreciation is not allowable on toll roads constructed under BOT arrangements as the assessee does not acquire ownership of the road, and the right to collect toll is only a contractual right. Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Hazaribagh Ranchi Expressway Ltd. v. ACIT…

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, LKO, LUCKNOW vs. ACP TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 131/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 143(2)Section 32

…o allowed under respective head with\nprescribed rates of depreciation by Hon'ble Courts.\nD. Further Hon'ble Mumbai High Court where depreciation on toll road as\ninvestment in building were not allowed as held in the case of North\nKarnataka Expressway Ltd. 372 ITR 145 (AY 2005-06) The Hon'ble\nHigh Court after considering the fact & circumstances of the case has\nalso held:-\nFor the above reasons and which are in addition to those supplied by the\nCommissioner andthe Tribunal, this Appeal fails. The reframed\nsubstantial question of law is answered in favour ofthe Revenue and\nagainst the Assessee, but by cla…

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 443/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2018-19 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F Vs.

For Appellant: Smt. Anoopa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…the case of CIT vs. West Gujarat Expressway ltd [2017] 390 ITR 398 (Bom.) took a view that the assessee is not entitled for depreciation on the assets not owned by the assessee by following its earlier decision of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd vs. CIT [2014] 372 ITR 145 (Bom.). 11. The above discussion clearly brings out that it is a highly debatable issue, as there is cleavage of judicial opinion amongst various High Courts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment order is erroneous. Therefore, the Ld. PCIT was not justified in exercising the power of revision in respect of the item of allowing deprec…

VIJAYWADA GUDUGOLANU ROAD PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1839/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 32(1)(ii)

…76,14,23,859/- on Intangible Assets by way of "Rights to collect Toll" under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 145 (Born.) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT 1997 225 ITR (SC) and following the CBDT Circular No. 09/2014 dat2d 3rd April, 2014, in the impugned order dated 26th August, 2020 passed d by the Learned CIT(A). b) On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Learn…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG SEAPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ance of depreciation on project berth of Rs. 13,68,08,086/- by following the order passed by his predecessor for the preceding AY 2007-08 and 2010- 11, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in North Karnataka Expressway Ltd vs. CIT (2005) 372 ITR 145 (Bom.) and following the CBDT Circular No. 09/2014, dated 23rd April, 2014 in the impugned order. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding that the appellant was not the legal owner of the project berth for an indefinite period of time, despite the fact that Article 6(1)(b) contained in the License Agreemen…

VIZAG SEAPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OR INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 83/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ance of depreciation on project berth of Rs. 13,68,08,086/- by following the order passed by his predecessor for the preceding AY 2007-08 and 2010- 11, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in North Karnataka Expressway Ltd vs. CIT (2005) 372 ITR 145 (Bom.) and following the CBDT Circular No. 09/2014, dated 23rd April, 2014 in the impugned order. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding that the appellant was not the legal owner of the project berth for an indefinite period of time, despite the fact that Article 6(1)(b) contained in the License Agreemen…

VIZAG SEAPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 944/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ance of depreciation on project berth of Rs. 13,68,08,086/- by following the order passed by his predecessor for the preceding AY 2007-08 and 2010- 11, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in North Karnataka Expressway Ltd vs. CIT (2005) 372 ITR 145 (Bom.) and following the CBDT Circular No. 09/2014, dated 23rd April, 2014 in the impugned order. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding that the appellant was not the legal owner of the project berth for an indefinite period of time, despite the fact that Article 6(1)(b) contained in the License Agreemen…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ASHOKA DHANKUNI KHARAGPUR TOLLWAY LIMITED,, NASHIK

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 143/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.143/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Ashoka Dhankuni Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs Kharagpur Tollway Ltd., Nashik. . S No 861, Ashoka House, Ashoka Marg, Vadala, Nashik. Pan: Aajca 2569 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri B Koteswra Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune- 12’S Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1031080551(1) Dated 28.02.2021, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…in [2014] 43 taxmann.com 159]; (v) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali [reported in [2001] 118 Taxman 712]. 9. The decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. vs. CIT, 372 ITR 145; (vii) CIT vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. (No.1), 390 ITR 398 and (viii) CIT vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. (No.2), 390 ITR 400 have no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the decision in the said two cases relates to the allowability of depreciation on roads treating as “building”. In the circumstances, we do not find…

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2479/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…e grounds be set aside and that of the AO restored.” 5. The Learned Departmental Representative [Ld. DR] referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2015] 372 ITR 145 (Bombay) and argued that the assessee is only a licensor and does not own the property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1…

VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2478/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…e grounds be set aside and that of the AO restored.” 5. The Learned Departmental Representative [Ld. DR] referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2015] 372 ITR 145 (Bombay) and argued that the assessee is only a licensor and does not own the property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1…

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2402/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…e grounds be set aside and that of the AO restored.” 5. The Learned Departmental Representative [Ld. DR] referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2015] 372 ITR 145 (Bombay) and argued that the assessee is only a licensor and does not own the property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1…

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2401/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…e grounds be set aside and that of the AO restored.” 5. The Learned Departmental Representative [Ld. DR] referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2015] 372 ITR 145 (Bombay) and argued that the assessee is only a licensor and does not own the property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1…

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. VIZAG SEAPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2400/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri PJ Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…e grounds be set aside and that of the AO restored.” 5. The Learned Departmental Representative [Ld. DR] referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2015] 372 ITR 145 (Bombay) and argued that the assessee is only a licensor and does not own the property and 6 hence depreciation cannot be allowed on the Berths constructed by the assessee. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. Per contra, at the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] invoked the provisions of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1…

DY CIT CC 7(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S MUMBAI NASIK EXPRESSWAY LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 851/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.849/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2013-14) आअसं.850/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं.851/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-7(2),Mumbai, Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Aaecm-3349-K . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Achal Sharma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi
Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…e Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘ the Act’]. The ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on CBDT Circular No.9 of 2014 dated 23/04/2014 and the following decisions to support the findings of Assessing Officer : (i) North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. vs. CIT, 372 ITR 145 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd., 390 ITR 398 (Bom). 4. In respect of ground No.2 relating to assesses’s claim of Periodic Maintenance Charges (PMC), the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee had made provision for PMC only on estimation without applying any scientific method to compute/calculate the provisions.…

DY CIT CC 7(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S MUMBAI NASIK EXPRESSWAY LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 850/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.849/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2013-14) आअसं.850/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं.851/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-7(2),Mumbai, Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Aaecm-3349-K . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Achal Sharma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi
Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…e Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘ the Act’]. The ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on CBDT Circular No.9 of 2014 dated 23/04/2014 and the following decisions to support the findings of Assessing Officer : (i) North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. vs. CIT, 372 ITR 145 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd., 390 ITR 398 (Bom). 4. In respect of ground No.2 relating to assesses’s claim of Periodic Maintenance Charges (PMC), the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee had made provision for PMC only on estimation without applying any scientific method to compute/calculate the provisions.…

DY CIT CC 7(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S MUMBAI NASIK EXPRESSWAY LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 849/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.849/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2013-14) आअसं.850/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं.851/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-7(2),Mumbai, Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Aaecm-3349-K . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Achal Sharma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi
Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…e Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘ the Act’]. The ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on CBDT Circular No.9 of 2014 dated 23/04/2014 and the following decisions to support the findings of Assessing Officer : (i) North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. vs. CIT, 372 ITR 145 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd., 390 ITR 398 (Bom). 4. In respect of ground No.2 relating to assesses’s claim of Periodic Maintenance Charges (PMC), the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee had made provision for PMC only on estimation without applying any scientific method to compute/calculate the provisions.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ASHOKA DHANKUNI KHARAGPUR TOLLWAY LIMITED,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 157/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.157/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…in [2014] 43 taxmann.com 159]; (v) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali [reported in [2001] 118 Taxman 712]. 9. The decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. vs. CIT, 372 ITR 145; (vii) CIT vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. (No.1), 390 ITR 398 and (viii) CIT vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. (No.2), 390 ITR 400 have no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the decision in the said two cases relates to the allowability of depreciation on roads treating as “building”. In the circumstances, we do not find…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ASHOKA BELGAUM DHARWARD TOLLWAY LTD,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 188/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.157/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…in [2014] 43 taxmann.com 159]; (v) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali [reported in [2001] 118 Taxman 712]. 9. The decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. vs. CIT, 372 ITR 145; (vii) CIT vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. (No.1), 390 ITR 398 and (viii) CIT vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. (No.2), 390 ITR 400 have no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the decision in the said two cases relates to the allowability of depreciation on roads treating as “building”. In the circumstances, we do not find…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ASHOKA BELGAUM DHARWARD TOLLWAY LTD,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 187/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.157/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…in [2014] 43 taxmann.com 159]; (v) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali [reported in [2001] 118 Taxman 712]. 9. The decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. vs. CIT, 372 ITR 145; (vii) CIT vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. (No.1), 390 ITR 398 and (viii) CIT vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. (No.2), 390 ITR 400 have no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the decision in the said two cases relates to the allowability of depreciation on roads treating as “building”. In the circumstances, we do not find…

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2