1. Banco Products (I) Ltd. v. DCIT

379 ITR 1High Court2015#15746 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing 1. Banco Products (I) Ltd. v. DCIT

ACIT, Ncc-8, Chennai vs. Saint Gobain India Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 585/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.581 & 585/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Saint-Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 8, [Formerly Known As M/S. Saint-Gobain Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, Annexe Glass India Ltd.], 18/3, Sigapi Achi Building, 7Th Floor, Rukmini Lakshmipathi Building, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai -600 034. Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aabcs4338M] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaragahavan, Advocate & : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal In Ita No. 581/Chny/2021 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 28.02.2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 & The Other Appeal In Ita No. 585/Chny/2021 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of 2

Section 143(3)Section 40

…be capital receipt and not revenue receipt. He strongly relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys [2017] 80 taxmann.com 239 (SC). He also relied on the following case law: 1. Banco Products (I) Ltd. v. DCIT 379 ITR 1 (Guj) 2. ACIT v. Genus Electrotech Limited in ITA No. 9513/Del/2019 & ors. 3. Sasisri Extractions Ltd. v. ACIT 119 TTJ 976 (Viz) 4. Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. ACIT 0 33 CCH 526 (Del - Trib) 5. PCIT v. M/s. Welspun Steels Ltd. 264 Taxman 252 (Bom) 6. PCIT v. Budge Budge Refineries Ltd. 139 Taxman.com 124 (Cal) 7.5 We have heard both the sides,…

ACIT, Ncc-8, Chennai vs. Saint Gobain India P Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 581/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.581 & 585/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Saint-Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 8, [Formerly Known As M/S. Saint-Gobain Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, Annexe Glass India Ltd.], 18/3, Sigapi Achi Building, 7Th Floor, Rukmini Lakshmipathi Building, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai -600 034. Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aabcs4338M] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaragahavan, Advocate & : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal In Ita No. 581/Chny/2021 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 28.02.2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 & The Other Appeal In Ita No. 585/Chny/2021 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of 2

Section 143(3)Section 40

…be capital receipt and not revenue receipt. He strongly relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys [2017] 80 taxmann.com 239 (SC). He also relied on the following case law: 1. Banco Products (I) Ltd. v. DCIT 379 ITR 1 (Guj) 2. ACIT v. Genus Electrotech Limited in ITA No. 9513/Del/2019 & ors. 3. Sasisri Extractions Ltd. v. ACIT 119 TTJ 976 (Viz) 4. Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. ACIT 0 33 CCH 526 (Del - Trib) 5. PCIT v. M/s. Welspun Steels Ltd. 264 Taxman 252 (Bom) 6. PCIT v. Budge Budge Refineries Ltd. 139 Taxman.com 124 (Cal) 7.5 We have heard both the sides,…

M/S. Kinfra Export Promotion Industrial Parks Ltd vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)

ITA/65/2018HC Kerala07 Apr 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 260A

…49,00,000/- received before 01.04.1999 cannot be adjusted in the assessment year 2009-10. He argues that, reliance on Saharanpur Electric Supply vs CIT6 to contend that the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to redetermine 4(MANU/KE/2157/2011) 5(2015) 379 ITR 1) 6(1992 194 ITR 296) ITA Nos.62&65/2018 19 the actual cost of an asset is not applicable to the circumstances of the case. The assessee is denied of benefit of ratio of PJ Chemicals. Without prejudice to the above argument, it is further contended that the amendment introduced with effect from 01.04.1952 to the Income Tax Act, 1952…

Hindustan Field Services P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result these ground No

ITA 4472/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhhindustan Field Services Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Circle-1(1)(2), 8Th Floor, Dakshina, Plot No.2, Mumbai. Sector-11, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614. Vs. Pan: Aabch9517P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hiro Rai (Ar) Respondent By : Shri M.K. Singh (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.K. Singh (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…n the submission that opening WDV cannot be disturbed, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Delhi Tribunal in Actis Advisers P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (146 ITD 314 (Del-Trib.), decision of Gujarat High Court in Banco Products (India) ltd. vs. DCIT (379 ITR 1 (Guj.), decision of Bangalore Tribunal in Akzo Nobel Coatings India P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (152 TTJ 774) and decision of Mumbai Tribunal in DCIT vs. Essar Steel Ltd. (61 SOT 39 (Mum-Trib.). The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that case law relied by Assessing Officer in Federal Bank vs. ACIT 9322 ITR 319 (Kerala) is not applicable on the facts…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Pasadensa Foods Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 3002/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2005-06 Acit, Vs. Pasadensa Foods Ltd., Circle-10(1), (Now Known As Dabur Foods Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Assessment Year: 2005-06 Pasadensa Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, (Now Known As Dabur Circle-10(1), Foods Ltd.), New Delhi. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…ar that the judgment in the case of P.J. Chemicals (supra), therefore, no more holds the field w.e.f. assessment year 1999-2000 onwards. 12. The ld. AR also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Banco Products (I) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2015) 379 ITR 1 (Guj) to contend that the amount of subsidy should not be reduced from the actual cost for the purposes of depreciation. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Banco Products (supra) has held that where portion of cost of asset acquired by assessee had been met directly or indirectly by Central Government or State Government or any authority establis…

Pasadensa Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 2731/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2005-06 Acit, Vs. Pasadensa Foods Ltd., Circle-10(1), (Now Known As Dabur Foods Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Assessment Year: 2005-06 Pasadensa Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, (Now Known As Dabur Circle-10(1), Foods Ltd.), New Delhi. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…ar that the judgment in the case of P.J. Chemicals (supra), therefore, no more holds the field w.e.f. assessment year 1999-2000 onwards. 12. The ld. AR also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Banco Products (I) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2015) 379 ITR 1 (Guj) to contend that the amount of subsidy should not be reduced from the actual cost for the purposes of depreciation. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Banco Products (supra) has held that where portion of cost of asset acquired by assessee had been met directly or indirectly by Central Government or State Government or any authority establis…

1. Banco Products (I) Ltd. v. DCIT (379 ITR 1) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax