TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Depreciation at higher 30% on tippers denied as activity was mining, s.147 reassessment invalid; appeal dismissed for 244-day delay</h1> <h3>Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Acit Versus P.C. Patel And Company</h3> The SC held the taxpayer's claim for depreciation at a higher 30% rate on tippers was not allowable because the business was mining/excavation ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - claim of the petitioner for depreciation on tippers at the higher rate of 30% is not allowable as the petitioner is engaged in the business of mining and excavation of contractors and not in the business of running the tippers/ motor lorries on hire. As decided by HC when the issue which is sought to be kept alive is already decided by this Court, the respondent AO cannot be said to have assumed the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on the same facts which have achieved finality for disallowing the excess claim of the depreciation. AO has also failed to point out any tangible material other than what is available on the record and as such the entire exercise of reopening is nothing but a change of opinion on the part of the AO - Delayed filling of SLP. HELD THAT:- We see no reason to condone the inordinate delay of 244 days in filing the Special Leave Petition as the explanation sought to be provided, does not constitute sufficient cause. Hence, petition(s) stands dismissed on the ground of delay. Having heard the learned Additional Solicitor General, the Court held that the 'inordinate delay of 244 days in filing the Special Leave Petition' could not be condoned because the explanation did not constitute 'sufficient cause.' Consequently, the 'petition(s) stands dismissed on the ground of delay.' The Court also directed that pending application(s), if any, 'shall stand disposed of.' The decision rests solely on procedural grounds relating to limitation and the absence of a legally adequate justification for the delay, rather than on the merits of the underlying dispute. No respondent appeared.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
