Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHIEF COMM. I.T. C.I.T. LUCKNOW versus RAMA SHANKAR SITAPUR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chief Comm. I.T. C.I.T. Lucknow v. Rama Shankar Sitapur - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 58 of 1987 [2004] RD-AH 1288 (2 November 2004)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.37

I.T.R No.58 of 1987

The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

vs.

Shri Rama Shanker, Sitapur.

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court:

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,  Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the asessee is entitled to depreciation on truck @ 40% as against 30% allowed by the I.T.O. And upheld by the A.A.C?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the notification dated 24.7.1980 is applicable for the assessment year 1980-81, when the relevant previous year expired before the issue of said notification?"

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows:-

The present reference relates to the Assessment Year 1980-81, the previous year which ended on 31st March, 1980. The respondent-assessee claimed depreciation @40% on truck used on hire. The Income Tax Officer allowed depreciation @ 30%. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the order of the Income Tax Officer. Feeling aggrieved the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which had held that the notification dated 24th July, 1980 providing higher depreciation @ 40% is applicable in the present case and consequently the respondent-assessee is entitled to depreciation @ 40%.

We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. Nobody has appeared for the respondent-assessee.

It is well settled that in view of the Income Tax Act the law as stands on the first day of the assessment year is applicable unless and until any amendment made in the Act notification issued therein is specifically made applicable from an interior date.  In this view of the matter, notification dated 24th July, 1980 providing for higher depreciation on the truck used on higher was not applicable for the Assessment Year 1980-81. The Tribunal has clearly erred in law in granting depreciation @ 40% on the basis of the said notification.

In view of the foregoing discussions, we answer the above questions referred to us in the affirmative i.e. In favour of the Revenue  and against the assessee.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.

2.11.2004

mz


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.