(1) CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd.

187 Taxmann 111High Court2010#4628 most cited

What is (1) CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. authority for?

Depreciation must be allowed on the entire block of assets as defined in Section 2(11) of the Income-tax Act, and individual assets of each unit cannot be considered separately for this purpose.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. · Section 2(11) · block of assets · depreciation · individual asset

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 32(1)Section 41(1)Section 43(5)Section 69A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 41(1)(a)remission or cessation of liabilitysection 43(6)(c)section 65b(4)opening wdvspeculation losssection 73section 43(6)section 43(5)speculative transactionwholly and exclusively for businessdoctrine of merger

Judgments citing (1) CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd.

Bharath Mines and Minerals, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1989/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Bharat Mines and The Assistant Minerals, Commissioner of Flat No. 101, Pride Elite, vs. Income Tax, No. 10, Museum Road, Circle – 1 (2) (1), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. PAN: AAIFB5964G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA : Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi, Respondent by Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 23.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 15.02.2019 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal…

Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Krystal Colloids P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3170/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Krystal Colloids Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 15(2)(1) Room Vs. 119, Purusharth Bldg., Nawroji No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Hill Road, No. 2, Dongri, Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai, 400009. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacck5409J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Anoop Hiwase, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, Ar Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anoop Hiwase, DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 47

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Asst. Commissioner of M/s Krystal Colloids Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 15(2)(1) Room Vs. 119, Purusharth Bldg., Nawroji No. 357, 3rd floor, Aayakar Hill Road, No. 2, Dongri, Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai, 400009. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AACCK5409J Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Anoop Hiwase, DR Assessee by : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, AR Date of Hearing : 07/05/2018 Date of pronouncement: 31/07/2018 ORDER PER N.…

M/S. Business India Television International Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03 is dismissed; whereas the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment

ITA 1358/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O. P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Subhakant Sahu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” New Delhi BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O. P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.4371/DEL/2010 Assessment Year: 2002-03 DCIT, Circle-3(1), vs. Business India Television New Delhi. International Ltd., 14th Floor, Nirmal Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai. TAN/PAN: AAACB 4781G (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.4415/DEL/2010 Assessment Year: 2002-03 Business India Television v. ACIT, Circle-3(1), International Ltd., New Delhi. 14th Floor, Nirmal Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai. TAN/PAN: AAACB 4781G (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.1358/DEL/201…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cement Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1985/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 32

…e block of assets as defined u/s. 2(11) of the IT Act and individual asset of each unit cannot be considered for that purpose, as also held by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court 1985, 2946 & 5399 /Del./2013 5 in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd., 187 Taxmann 111. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also relied on the following decisions : (i). CIT vs. Union Carbide (I) Ltd. , 254 ITR 488 (Cal.) (ii). M/s. Swati Synthetics Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 1165/M/2006 dt. 17.12.2009- Mumbai Tribunal) (iii). G.R. Shipping Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA 822/Mum/05 dt. 17.07.2008- Mumbai Tribunal) 6. We have considered the riv…

Container Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1876/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishicontainer Corporation Of India Ltd, Dcit, C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Circle-3(1), Vs. Hospital, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacc1205A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Container Corporation Of India Ltd, Circle-3(1), C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Vs. New Delhi Hospital, New Delhi Pan:Aaacc1205A (Appellant) (Respondent) Container Corporation Of India Ltd, Acit, C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Circle-3(1), Vs. Hospital, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacc1205A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Container Corporation Of India Ltd, Circle-3(1), C-3, Mathura Road, Opp. Apollo Vs. New Delhi Hospital, New Delhi Pan:Aaacc1205A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Deepika Mittal, CIT DR
Section 80Section 80I

…ppeal before the ld CIT(A), he deleted the addition for the reason that the above issue was covered by the Page 14 of 21 decision in earlier years. He allowed the claim following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CST Vs. Bharat Aluminium 187 Taxmann 111. 19. The ld Departmental Representative relied on the order of the AO. Whereas the ld AR submitted that the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd 328 ITR 297. 20. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The first appell…