12 CIT v. Seraikella Glass Works (P) Ltd.

157 ITR 584High Court#22929 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing 12 CIT v. Seraikella Glass Works (P) Ltd.

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. METSO MINERALS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6681/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…expenditure is relevant. Further even the magnitude of the expenditure is also not relevant, the real test is whether the asset is merely maintained or is replaced or improved by the expenditure incurred. Kindly see 12 CIT vs Seraikella Glass Works (P) Ltd., 157 ITR 584 (Pat) As per concise oxford dictionary, "to repair” is to restore to good condition, h) renovate, mend by replacing or re-fix,ng parts or compensating loss or exhaustion. As per Laxicon Webster Dictionary, "to repair” is to restore to a sound or good state after decay, injury, dilapidation or partial destruction. i) Section 30(a)(ii) and sect…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue against the direction of the Ld

ITA 1106/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Centre, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle- New Friends Colony, 10(2), New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan: Aaacg1622K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle-10(2), 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Cr Building, Ip Estate, Centre, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg1622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Meeta Singh CIT DR

Section 144Section 144CSection 14A

…Y 2010-11 ITA No 1106 & 973/Del/2015  CIT vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. [224 Taxman 188 (Kar – Mag)] [2014]  CIT vs. Nizam Sugar Factory 116 ITR 706 (AP)  ACIT vs. Dyer‟s Stone Lime Co 136 ITR 8 (Del)  CIT vs. Serikella Glass Works: 157 ITR 584 (Pat)  Messrs Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd vs. CIT 46 ITR 533 (Pat)  Rhodesia Railways vs. ITC 1 ITR 227 (PC)  Bansilal Abirchand vs. CIT 31 ITR 427 (Nag)  South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. JCIT: 85 ITD 608 (Nag),  DCIT v. Eicher Motors Ltd.: 67 SOT 306 (Del – Trib)  CIT v. TVS Motors: 364 ITR 1 (HC)(Mad)  CIT vs. Sree Ayyanar Spinni…

M/S BLA COKE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. CIT,--IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Agarwal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Sachidananda Srivastava, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…dicial pronouncements in support of the contention of capital work in progress wherein it was held that loss on abandonment of capital assets are to be allowed as revenue expenditure. Binani Cement Ltd. Vs CIT 380 ITR 116, CIT vs Seraikella glass Works (P)Ltd 157 ITR 584 (Patna),Addl. CIT vs Dyer’s Stone Lime Co.(P)Ltd. 136 ITR 8 (Del) and CIT vs Bharat Aluminium Co. Limited 292 ITR 600 (Delhi). The learned DR relied on the order of CIT. 8. After considering the rival submissions we are of the view that order of the CIT us/ 263 of the Act cannot be sustained. The law is well settled to invoke the provision u/s 2…