| Case ID |
1561dd99-5fb4-4aed-8b23-5ef87d49d960 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE No. 64 OF 1960 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 24, 1962 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court ruled in favor of the revenue, affirming the applicability of section 10(4B) as introduced by the Finance Act of 1958. It was decided that the retrospective amendment must be considered in the context of the Income-tax Act of 1922, and thus the provisions regarding depreciation and asset disposal were applicable to the assessment year 1952-53. The court clarified that the term 'such' in section 10(2)(vii) encompasses assets beyond those mentioned in section 10(2)(via), thereby reinforcing the interpretation that the provisions of the Act applied to all relevant assets without restriction to new constructions post-31 March 1948. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Bennett Coleman & Co. (P.) Ltd v. Commissioner of Income tax, the Bombay High Court addressed significant issues surrounding the interpretation of depreciation allowances under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The case revolved around the disallowance of depreciation claims made by the petitioner for a building constructed in 1951 and sold within the same year. The core legal question examined was whether the retrospective amendment introduced by the Finance Act of 1958, which included section 10(4B), applied to the assessment year 1952-53. The court concluded that the amendment was indeed applicable, thus affirming the denial of the depreciation claims. The decision emphasized that the provisions of section 10(2)(vii) encompassed a broader interpretation of assets than previously argued, allowing the court to uphold the revenue's position. This case is particularly relevant for tax professionals and legal practitioners dealing with income tax assessments and depreciation claims, as it clarifies the conditions under which depreciation allowances can be claimed and the implications of retrospective legislative changes. Key terms related to income tax law and depreciation are central to this case, making it a valuable reference point for future litigation and tax strategy formulation. |
| Court |
Bombay High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Commissioner of Income tax,
Bennett Coleman & Co. (P.) Ltd
|
| Judges |
Y.S. Tambe,
V.S. Desai
|
| Lawyers |
N.A. Palkhivala,
F.N. Kaka,
G.N. Joshi,
R.J. Joshi
|
| Petitioners |
Bennett Coleman & Co. (P.) Ltd
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income tax
|
| Citations |
1963 SLD 435,
(1963) 49 ITR 264
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961,
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
32,
34(1),
34(2),
10(2)(vii),
10(4B),
10(2)(via)
|