| Case ID |
5c751098-1caf-4f76-a616-fd29bf915318 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE No. 196 OF 1963 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 04, 1969 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court ruled against the assessee, confirming that the additional depreciation under section 10(2)(via) was not applicable for the assessment year 1959-60. The decision was based on the interpretation that the phrase 'financial year' referred to assessment years, and the five-year limit for additional depreciation expired on 31-03-1959. The court noted that the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act must be strictly construed, and the assessee failed to meet the conditions established for claiming additional depreciation. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of section 10(2)(via) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, specifically regarding the eligibility for additional depreciation on machinery installed after March 31, 1948. The Calcutta High Court examined whether the financial years referenced in this section corresponded to assessment years and concluded that the additional depreciation could not be claimed for the assessment year 1959-60. The case highlights the importance of precise legal interpretations in tax law and the necessity for assessees to comply with statutory requirements. The ruling emphasized that the words 'financial year' must be understood within the context of assessment years, and the court's decision reflects a strict adherence to the legal framework governing income tax provisions. This case is significant for taxpayers and legal practitioners involved in tax law, especially in understanding the nuances of depreciation claims under the Indian Income-tax Act. Key terms include 'Indian Income-tax Act', 'depreciation', 'financial year', and 'assessment year', which are critical for legal discussions and SEO optimization. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Deb Mukharji,
Sabyasachi Mukharji
|
| Lawyers |
Gouri Mitter,
Dipak Sen,
Dr. D. Pal,
Jhunjhunwala
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Vinar (P.) Ltd.
|
| Citations |
1970 SLD 470 = (1970) 76 ITR 26
|
| Other Citations |
Veerappa Transports v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 442 (Mad.),
Kumba Konam Electric Supply Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 809 (Mad.),
CIT v. Netherlands Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1965] 53 ITR 774 (Cal.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
10(2)(via)
|