9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 230 - HC - Income TaxHigher rate of depreciation on dumpers @ 30% OR @ 15% - Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the CIT(A) granting higher rate of depreciation at the rate of 30% on the dumpers - HELD THAT - Having regard to the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court referred to above and even otherwise, we are of the view that the question of law as proposed cannot be termed as substantial question of law. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Issues:
- Interpretation of depreciation rates on dumpers under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The High Court of Gujarat heard a Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The main question raised was whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in confirming the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to grant a higher rate of depreciation at 30% on dumpers, compared to the 15% depreciation allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Court noted that a similar issue had been considered by a coordinate Bench in a previous case where all appeals failed. In the present case, the Assessing Officer had allowed depreciation at 15%, but the CIT(A) granted a higher rate of 30%, which was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The Court, considering the earlier decision and the facts of the case, concluded that the proposed question of law was not substantial. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed. This judgment focused on the interpretation of depreciation rates applicable to dumpers under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court analyzed the differing depreciation rates allowed by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), ultimately affirming the higher rate of 30% granted by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The Court's decision was influenced by a previous ruling by a coordinate Bench on a similar issue, where the proposed question of law was not deemed substantial. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the consistency in the application of depreciation rates in such cases.
|
