ACIT v. Victory Aqua Farm Ltd.

379 ITR 335Supreme Court of India2015#7152 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(3)section 10(5)section 43(3)section 14a(1)section 42strategic investmentsection 80ia(4)section 115jb(2)section 34section 80iasection 80idisallowance under section 14a

Judgments citing ACIT v. Victory Aqua Farm Ltd.

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 304/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…ace wherein they were carried on, the building could not be regarded as a plant." 3.4. In addition, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Victory Aqua Farm Ltd. [2015] 379 ITR 335/234 Taxman 598/61 taxmann.com 166 wherein Paragraphs 4 and 6 are reproduced hereunder :— '4. It is not in dispute that if these ponds are 'plants', then they are eligible for depreciation at the rates applicable to plant and machinery and case would be covered by the provisions of Section 32 of the Act. It is not even necessary to deal with t…

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 193/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…ace wherein they were carried on, the building could not be regarded as a plant." 3.4. In addition, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Victory Aqua Farm Ltd. [2015] 379 ITR 335/234 Taxman 598/61 taxmann.com 166 wherein Paragraphs 4 and 6 are reproduced hereunder :— '4. It is not in dispute that if these ponds are 'plants', then they are eligible for depreciation at the rates applicable to plant and machinery and case would be covered by the provisions of Section 32 of the Act. It is not even necessary to deal with t…

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 167/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…ace wherein they were carried on, the building could not be regarded as a plant." 3.4. In addition, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Victory Aqua Farm Ltd. [2015] 379 ITR 335/234 Taxman 598/61 taxmann.com 166 wherein Paragraphs 4 and 6 are reproduced hereunder :— '4. It is not in dispute that if these ponds are 'plants', then they are eligible for depreciation at the rates applicable to plant and machinery and case would be covered by the provisions of Section 32 of the Act. It is not even necessary to deal with t…

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 166/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…ace wherein they were carried on, the building could not be regarded as a plant." 3.4. In addition, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Victory Aqua Farm Ltd. [2015] 379 ITR 335/234 Taxman 598/61 taxmann.com 166 wherein Paragraphs 4 and 6 are reproduced hereunder :— '4. It is not in dispute that if these ponds are 'plants', then they are eligible for depreciation at the rates applicable to plant and machinery and case would be covered by the provisions of Section 32 of the Act. It is not even necessary to deal with t…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. PRATHYUSHA GLOBAL TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the petition filed by assessee under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules is dismissed

ITA 638/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

…he ponds as capital expenditure and has claimed depreciation @ 100% on the same. The Ld. AO has considered the capital asset as plant and machinery and by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Victory Aqua Farm Ltd [2015] 379 ITR 335 (SC) has denied the depreciation of 85% additionally claimed by the assessee. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has considered the alternative plea of the assessee that this is a revenue expenditure and allowed the deduction U/s. 37(1) of the Act by not providing any opportunity to examine the payments by the Ld. AO. The Ld. DR fu…

M/S.KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 389/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 42

…he case of the appellant (Kerala State Warehousing Corporation Vs CIT) referred to above needs to be considered against the backdrop of facts as under: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Victory Aqua Farms Ltd (2015 ) 379 ITR 335 (SC) and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Hari Nath Anand (1987) 168 ITR 440 (All) have laid down the principle of judicial principle that a later decision of a court of law on an issue that is pari materia would not be binding if such later decision is not decided by a larger full bench as against the earlier decision decid…

INDUSTRIAL INCUBATOR vs. DY.COMMNR.OF I.T.

ITA/179/2004HC Orissa10 Nov 2021

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…STREV No.28 of 2006 Page 5 of 6 Panda, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant (Assessee) placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Victory Aqua Farm Ltd. (2015) 379 ITR 335 (SC) 11. The above decision has been perused. There the question of law considered by the Supreme Court of India reads as under: “Whether ‘natural pond’ which as per the assessee is specially designed for rearing prawns would be treated as ‘plant’ within S. 32 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the purpose…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-15(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7271/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla, Hon‟Ble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…like a plant in case of the assessee. Further, it is not the case of the revenue that assessee has claimed any depreciation on the land. It is similar to the depreciation on pond allowed in the case of an aquaculture company by the honourable Supreme Court in 379 ITR 335 and honourable Gujarat High Court holding that mineral oil well also constitute a plant. The learned CIT - A is not correct in saying that playing equipments, creating landscaping, holes, ponds and others are being done in the regular course to facilitate the game of golf and not into any production of goods and services. In fact, by creating the…

LANDBASE INDIA LIMITED.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-15(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7269/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla, Hon‟Ble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…like a plant in case of the assessee. Further, it is not the case of the revenue that assessee has claimed any depreciation on the land. It is similar to the depreciation on pond allowed in the case of an aquaculture company by the honourable Supreme Court in 379 ITR 335 and honourable Gujarat High Court holding that mineral oil well also constitute a plant. The learned CIT - A is not correct in saying that playing equipments, creating landscaping, holes, ponds and others are being done in the regular course to facilitate the game of golf and not into any production of goods and services. In fact, by creating the…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4999/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…e assessee's trading activity? Was it a tool of his trade with which he carried on his business? If the answer was in the affirmative, it would be a "plant". 11. Honourable supreme court in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. VICTORY AQUA FARM LTD. [2015] 379 ITR 335 (SC) has held that when assessee carried on the business of aquaculture. It grew prawns in specially designed ponds. It claimed depreciation in respect of these ponds treating them as tools of its business and, therefore, constituting “plant” within the meaning of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4998/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…e assessee's trading activity? Was it a tool of his trade with which he carried on his business? If the answer was in the affirmative, it would be a "plant". 11. Honourable supreme court in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. VICTORY AQUA FARM LTD. [2015] 379 ITR 335 (SC) has held that when assessee carried on the business of aquaculture. It grew prawns in specially designed ponds. It claimed depreciation in respect of these ponds treating them as tools of its business and, therefore, constituting “plant” within the meaning of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…e assessee's trading activity? Was it a tool of his trade with which he carried on his business? If the answer was in the affirmative, it would be a "plant". 11. Honourable supreme court in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. VICTORY AQUA FARM LTD. [2015] 379 ITR 335 (SC) has held that when assessee carried on the business of aquaculture. It grew prawns in specially designed ponds. It claimed depreciation in respect of these ponds treating them as tools of its business and, therefore, constituting “plant” within the meaning of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim…

M/S LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…e assessee's trading activity? Was it a tool of his trade with which he carried on his business? If the answer was in the affirmative, it would be a "plant". 11. Honourable supreme court in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. VICTORY AQUA FARM LTD. [2015] 379 ITR 335 (SC) has held that when assessee carried on the business of aquaculture. It grew prawns in specially designed ponds. It claimed depreciation in respect of these ponds treating them as tools of its business and, therefore, constituting “plant” within the meaning of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…e assessee's trading activity? Was it a tool of his trade with which he carried on his business? If the answer was in the affirmative, it would be a "plant". 11. Honourable supreme court in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. VICTORY AQUA FARM LTD. [2015] 379 ITR 335 (SC) has held that when assessee carried on the business of aquaculture. It grew prawns in specially designed ponds. It claimed depreciation in respect of these ponds treating them as tools of its business and, therefore, constituting “plant” within the meaning of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4849/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…e assessee's trading activity? Was it a tool of his trade with which he carried on his business? If the answer was in the affirmative, it would be a "plant". 11. Honourable supreme court in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. VICTORY AQUA FARM LTD. [2015] 379 ITR 335 (SC) has held that when assessee carried on the business of aquaculture. It grew prawns in specially designed ponds. It claimed depreciation in respect of these ponds treating them as tools of its business and, therefore, constituting “plant” within the meaning of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim…

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)

…lance of block as Plant & Machinery for allowance to depreciation. 5. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee on the point of functional test to be applied relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Victory Aqua Farm Ltd. (379 ITR 335 (SC), CIT vs. Karnataka Power Corporation ( 274 ITR 268 (SC), CIT vs. Dr. B. Venkata Rao (243 ITR 81 (SC). On 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 (…