1. Induotherm (India) Ltd. v. DCIT

73 ITD 329Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#25565 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,627 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing 1. Induotherm (India) Ltd. v. DCIT

Everest Industires Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT RG 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 3804/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…its entire life. In that view of the matter, it was held that the “user test” is required to be examined only in the year in which the asset was purchased. Identical view has been expressed in the following cases also:- 1. Induotherm (India) Ltd. V DCIT 2000(73 ITD 329)(Anmedabad). 2. The Joint CIT V Citicorp Overseas Softwares Ltd. (2004)(085 TTJ 0087) Mumbai Tribunal. 3. Parikh Engineering and Body Building Co. Ltd Vs. ACIT (1999)(69 ITD 207) (PATNA) 25. The above said decisions bring out the proposition that the individual asset would loose its identity, once it enters into a block. In our view, we may apply…

Cybersol Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 8 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2749/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 2749/Mum/2016 : (A.Y : 2012-13) M/S Cybersol Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito 8(1)(2) 524-527, Raheja Metroplex Room No.601-A, 6Th Floor (Ijmima) Aayakar Bhavan Behind Goregaon Sports Club M.K.Road Off Link Road, Malad West Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan : Aabcc3318B (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K Gopal / Ms Neha Pranjape प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Jintendra Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2017 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : /04/2017

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal /For Respondent: Shri Jintendra Kumar

Section 2Section 32Section 43(6)Section 50

…Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.2749/Mum/2016, A.Y.2012-13. and not used and owned by the Assessee. He also relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions : (a) CIT Vs. Yamaha Motor India (P) Ltd [226 CTR 204] (b) Inductotherm (I) Ltd Vs. DCIT [73 ITD 329] (c) JCIT Vs. City Group Overseas Software Ltd [85 TTJ 87] (d) Swati Synthetic Ltd. Vs. ITO [38 SOT 208] (Mumbai) (e) GR Shipping Ltd. Vs DCIT, ITA 822/Mum/2005 dated 17.07.2008. Appeal by the Revenue against this decision is dismissed by the High Court in ITA No.598/2009 dated 28.07.2009. 9. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the autho…

M/S. Shivgori Builders (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 847/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…Vs HSBC Asset Management India Pvt. Ltd. 228 Taxman 365 (Bom) (Mag) " Packwell Printers Vs ACIT 59 ITD 340 (Jab) " DCIT Vs Finolex Cables Ltd. 114 TTJ 785 (Pune) " M/s Fitjee Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 4627/Del/2012 & 2840/Del/2013 " Inductotherm (India) Vs CIT 73 ITD 329 (Ahd.) " Mistsui Prime Advance Composites India Pvt. Ltd. in " Waterfall Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 131 ITR 223 (Mad) 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that bank charges of Rs.10,248/- and audit fees of Rs.12,000/- are statutory/contractual expenditure and genuineness of the same cannot be disputed. It was also submitted that the…