238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd.

285 ITR 142High Court2006#4843 most cited

What is 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. authority for?

The leasing company is considered the owner of an asset under a lease agreement and is therefore entitled to claim depreciation, including at a higher rate for assets hired out. The court does not consider it necessary to delve into disputes about invoice issuance names when the lease agreement and related factors satisfy the ownership criteria.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. · Section 32 · depreciation on leased assets · owner of asset · lease agreement · leasing company · higher rate of depreciation · hired out assets · lessor entitlement · A.M. Constructions · M.G.F. (India) Ltd. · Annamalai Finance Ltd.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 37(1)Section 92CA(3)

Issues it is cited on

depreciation on leased assetsicdssection 32(1)section 32revenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 263section 26transfersection 25prescribedperson

Judgments citing 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd.

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. NTT GLOBAL DATA CENTERS CLOUD INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4102/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. DR
Section 250

…agreement. [Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. A.M. Constructions, reported in (1999) 238 ITR 775 (AP); Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs. Bansal Credits Ltd., reported in (2003) 259 ITR 69 (Del); COMMISSIONER of Income-Tax Vs. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. reported in (2006) 285 ITR 142 (Del); Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Annamalai Finance Ltd., reported in (2005) 275 ITR 451 (Mad)]. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decisions…

NTT GLOBAL DATA CENTERS & CLOUD INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (ERSTWHILE NETMAGIC IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-10 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 2784/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blentt Global Data Centers & Cloud V. National E-Assessment Centre Infrastructure India Private Limited {Now Known As National {Erstwhile Netmagic It Services Faceless Appeal Centre} Private Limited} Delhi 7Th Floor, Hiranandani Business Park Sakinaka S.O., Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aaccn2366D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Shri Arpit Doshi & Ms. Payal Mehta Department Represented By : Shri S. Srinivasu

Section 37(1)

…agreement. [Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. A.M. Constructions, reported in (1999) 238 ITR 775 (AP); Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs. Bansal Credits Ltd., reported in (2003) 259 ITR 69 (Del); COMMISSIONER of Income-Tax Vs. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. reported in (2006) 285 ITR 142 (Del); Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Annamalai Finance Ltd., reported in (2005) 275 ITR 451 (Mad)]. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decisions…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -TINSUKIA , TINSUKIA vs. KRISHNA BORTHAKUR, L/R OF LATE KAMAKHYA BORTHAKUR, TINSUKIA

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

ITA 456/GTY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…holding that the higher rate of depreciation @ 30% is admissible in respect of Cranes in the instant case. My above view finds support from the decision in the case of CIT v. Shaan Finance (P) Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 308 (SC) and CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 142 (Delhi). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has in the case of MGF (India) Ltd. (supra) has held, "the vehicles which were subject matter of the lease agreement were in fact given by the 10 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Sri Kamakhya Borthakur, Tinsukia assessee to third parties. To this extent, the requirement of law had been met. There was no additiona…

DCIT CIRCLE- 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE CORPORATE IT PARK LTD., NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 1195/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 250

…challenged by the Revenue, wherein the lessor has been held as the owner of an asset in a lease agreement. CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v.Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.). In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decision…

TTK PROTECTIVE DEVICES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1966/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV. Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…Shann Finance Pvt. Ltd. (97 Taxman 435). The Hon’ble Court also took note of similar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. 9. S…

TTK PROTECTIVE DEVICES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1965/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV. Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…Shann Finance Pvt. Ltd. (97 Taxman 435). The Hon’ble Court also took note of similar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. 9. S…

M/S SUNDARAM INFOTECH SOLUTIONS LIMITED (MERGED WITH SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED),CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2517/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…Shann Finance Pvt. Ltd. (97 Taxman 435). The Hon’ble Court also took note of similar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. ITA…

M/S SUNDARAM INFOTECH SOLUTIONS LIMITED (MERGED WITH SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED),CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2516/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…Shann Finance Pvt. Ltd. (97 Taxman 435). The Hon’ble Court also took note of similar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. ITA…

M/S SUNDARAM INFOTECH SOLUTIONS LIMITED (MERGED WITH SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED),CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2515/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…Shann Finance Pvt. Ltd. (97 Taxman 435). The Hon’ble Court also took note of similar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. ITA…

M/S. TRISTAR CONTAINER SERVICES (ASIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 292/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…Shann Finance Pvt. Ltd. (97 Taxman 435). The Hon’ble Court also took note of similar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. 9. S…

TRISTAR CONTAINER SERVICES (ASIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 942/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…Shann Finance Pvt. Ltd. (97 Taxman 435). The Hon’ble Court also took note of similar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. 9. S…

TRISTAR CONTAINER SERVICES (ASIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 941/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…Shann Finance Pvt. Ltd. (97 Taxman 435). The Hon’ble Court also took note of similar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. 9. S…

TRISTAR CONTAINER SERVICES (ASIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 940/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…Shann Finance Pvt. Ltd. (97 Taxman 435). The Hon’ble Court also took note of similar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. 9. S…

TRISTAR CONTAINER SERVICES (ASIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 939/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…Shann Finance Pvt. Ltd. (97 Taxman 435). The Hon’ble Court also took note of similar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. 9. S…

TRISTAR CONTAINER SERVICES (ASIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 938/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…Shann Finance Pvt. Ltd. (97 Taxman 435). The Hon’ble Court also took note of similar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. 9. S…

TRISTAR CONTAINER SERVICES (ASIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 937/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…Shann Finance Pvt. Ltd. (97 Taxman 435). The Hon’ble Court also took note of similar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. 9. S…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

ITA/27/2019HC Karnataka18 Jun 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 260ASection 263Section 32

…ment. [Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. A.M. Constructions, reported in (1999) 238 ITR 775 (AP); Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs. Bansal Credits Ltd., reported in (2003) 259 ITR 69 (Del); COMMISSIONER of Income-Tax Vs. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. reported in (2006) 285 ITR 142 (Del); Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Annamalai Finance Ltd., reported in (2005) 275 ITR 451 (Mad)]. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these dec…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. QUIPPO OIL & GAS INFRA LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5710/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblequippo Oil & Gas Infra Ltd. Vs The Additional D-2, 5Th Floor, Southern Park, Commissioner Of Income Saket Place Tax, New Delhi Aaacq1278P Range-14 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs Quippo Oil & Gas Infra Ltd. Circle-14(1) D-2, 5Th Floor, Southern New Delhi Park, Saket Place New Delhi Aaacq1278P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 37Section 43B

…31 ITR 308 (SC) has observed that the owner is entitled to depreciation on the machinery which has been hired out. Similar view was given in the case of CIT(A) vs. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 455 (Mad) and CIT vs. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 142 (Del). 19. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case of the assessee, both the conditions are duly satisfied since the oil rigs being plant of 'specific category' are owned by the exploration & extraction of mineral oil in the field of mineral oil concerns. The assessee claimed depreciation…

M/S. QUIPPO OIL & GAS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5634/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblequippo Oil & Gas Infra Ltd. Vs The Additional D-2, 5Th Floor, Southern Park, Commissioner Of Income Saket Place Tax, New Delhi Aaacq1278P Range-14 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs Quippo Oil & Gas Infra Ltd. Circle-14(1) D-2, 5Th Floor, Southern New Delhi Park, Saket Place New Delhi Aaacq1278P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 37Section 43B

…31 ITR 308 (SC) has observed that the owner is entitled to depreciation on the machinery which has been hired out. Similar view was given in the case of CIT(A) vs. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 455 (Mad) and CIT vs. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 142 (Del). 19. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case of the assessee, both the conditions are duly satisfied since the oil rigs being plant of 'specific category' are owned by the exploration & extraction of mineral oil in the field of mineral oil concerns. The assessee claimed depreciation…

GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground, no

ITA 6282/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 92C

…challenged by the Revenue, wherein the lessor has been held as the owner of an asset in a lease agreement. CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CITv. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.). In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decisio…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. (285 ITR 142) — Cited in 24 Judgments | BharatTax