Court denies depreciation claim on tanker for not being used for business purposes. Assessee's appeal dismissed. The High Court upheld the decision of the lower authorities to disallow depreciation claim on a tanker for the assessment year 1996-1997, as it was not ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court denies depreciation claim on tanker for not being used for business purposes. Assessee's appeal dismissed.
The High Court upheld the decision of the lower authorities to disallow depreciation claim on a tanker for the assessment year 1996-1997, as it was not used for business purposes during the relevant period. Despite the assessee's arguments for allowing depreciation even for passive usage, the Court found no evidence to support the claim that the tanker was hired for water supply. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Issues: Claim of depreciation on a tanker for the assessment year 1996-1997.
Analysis: The judgment involves an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the claim of depreciation on a tanker for the assessment year 1996-1997. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claim, stating that it is only allowable on assets used for business purposes. The appellate authority and the Tribunal concurred with this decision, emphasizing that the tanker was not used for business during the relevant period. The Tribunal specifically noted the lack of evidence supporting the claim that the tanker was hired for water supply. The assessee argued that depreciation should be allowed even for passive usage, citing judicial precedents. However, the standing counsel for the department contended that the Tribunal's factual findings were not challenged, making the appeal unsustainable.
The High Court reviewed the orders of the assessing authority, appellate authority, and the Tribunal. It noted that all authorities had consistently found that the tanker was not used for business purposes during the relevant accounting year. The Tribunal also highlighted discrepancies in the claim of hire charges received for water transport. Despite the assessee's explanation regarding the tanker's usage for leak checking and hire charges being given to the driver, the Tribunal did not find supporting evidence. The High Court affirmed the lower authorities' findings that the tanker was not used during the accounting year, leading to the denial of depreciation benefits. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
