Addl.CIT v. Manjeet Engg. Ind

154 ITR 509High Court2004#9234 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2018.

Judgments citing Addl.CIT v. Manjeet Engg. Ind

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ABHAY COTEX PVT. LTD.,, JALNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1423/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1423/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kaul & Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 115JSection 32

…al rightly reached the conclusion that the assessee owned and used the three vehicles within the meaning of s. 32 of the Act. Similar view was taken in the case of CIT Vs, Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali(No.2), 256 ITR357(Raj), CIT Vs Fazilka Dabwali TPT Co. Ltd. (2004) 270 ITR 398 (P&H), CIT v. Salkia Transport Associates [1983] 143 ITR 39/13 Taxman 191 (Cal.), CIT v. Nidish Transport Corpn. [1910] 185 ITR 669/[1989] 44 Taxman 351(Ker.), CIT v. Dilip Singh Bagga [1993] 201ITR 995/[1994] 77 Taxman 66(Bom.), CIT v. Navdurga Transport Co. [1999] 235 ITR 158 (All.) and CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. [2002] 257 ITR 88/123 Ta…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 834/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)

…material and relevant. In the context of depreciation the courts have accepted the assessee’s claim for the same even when property/vehicles are not registered in the name of company/firm but in the names of directors/partners. Addl.CIT Vs. Manjeet Engg. Ind. 154 ITR 509 Delhi CIT Vs. Fazilka Dabwali 270 ITR 398; P&H Ratio of the said decisions would also apply to the facts of our case also. It is also important to note that the appellant’s claim for depreciation has been accepted also for the A.Y. 2007-08. We are enclosing herewith a copy of our sales tax registration certificate wherein the particulars of Offic…

RAJMAL LAKHICHAND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALGAON

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 672/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)

…material and relevant. In the context of depreciation the courts have accepted the assessee’s claim for the same even when property/vehicles are not registered in the name of company/firm but in the names of directors/partners. Addl.CIT Vs. Manjeet Engg. Ind. 154 ITR 509 Delhi CIT Vs. Fazilka Dabwali 270 ITR 398; P&H Ratio of the said decisions would also apply to the facts of our case also. It is also important to note that the appellant’s claim for depreciation has been accepted also for the A.Y. 2007-08. We are enclosing herewith a copy of our sales tax registration certificate wherein the particulars of Offic…

MANISH I. JAIN vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 999/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 2(24)(iv)

…terial and relevant. In the context of depreciation the courts have accepted the assessee’s claim for the same even when property/vehicles are not registered in the name of company/firm but in the names of directors/partners. Addl.CIT Vs. Manjeet Engg. Ind. 154 ITR 509 Delhi CIT Vs. Fazilka Dabwali 270 ITR 398; P&H Ratio of the said decisions would also apply to the facts of our case also. It is also important to note that the A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11 appellant’s claim for depreciation has been accepted also for the A.Y. 2007-08. We are enclosing herewith a copy of our sales tax We are enclosing herewith a cop…

ISHWARLAL S. LALWANI (JAIN) vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 667/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 2(24)(iv)

…terial and relevant. In the context of depreciation the courts have accepted the assessee’s claim for the same even when property/vehicles are not registered in the name of company/firm but in the names of directors/partners. Addl.CIT Vs. Manjeet Engg. Ind. 154 ITR 509 Delhi CIT Vs. Fazilka Dabwali 270 ITR 398; P&H Ratio of the said decisions would also apply to the facts of our case also. It is also important to note that the A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11 appellant’s claim for depreciation has been accepted also for the A.Y. 2007-08. We are enclosing herewith a copy of our sales tax We are enclosing herewith a cop…

ISHWARLAL S. LALWANI (JAIN) vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 666/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 2(24)(iv)

…terial and relevant. In the context of depreciation the courts have accepted the assessee’s claim for the same even when property/vehicles are not registered in the name of company/firm but in the names of directors/partners. Addl.CIT Vs. Manjeet Engg. Ind. 154 ITR 509 Delhi CIT Vs. Fazilka Dabwali 270 ITR 398; P&H Ratio of the said decisions would also apply to the facts of our case also. It is also important to note that the A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11 appellant’s claim for depreciation has been accepted also for the A.Y. 2007-08. We are enclosing herewith a copy of our sales tax We are enclosing herewith a cop…

LAL CHAND MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-3, JAIPUR

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

ITA 515/JPR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 148Section 45(3)Section 50CSection 69C

…goodwill of the business. Therefore any individual property owned by a partner and contributed to the firm becomes the firm’s property and individual does not remain the exclusive owner of such property. In case of Add.CIT Vs. Manjeet Engineering Industries [154 ITR 509] (Del.) and in case of CIT vs. A.V BhanojiRao [142 ITR 706] (AP) it is held that no particular mode or form is provided for bringing in a separate property into the stock of the firm by a partner and no deed whatsoever, registered or otherwise is required to be executed by the partner for doing so. It may be noted that after the land under consid…

ITO, ALWAR vs. KUNDAN LAL BADSHAH, ALWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is disposed off with above directions

ITA 383/JPR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Prithivi Raj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 50C

…oodwill of the business. Therefore any individual property owned by a partner and contributed to the firm becomes the firm’s property and individual goes not remain the excusive owner of such property. In case of Addl. CIT Vs. Manjee Engineering Industries [154 ITR 509] (Del.) and in case of CIT vs. A.V. Bhanoji Rao [142 ITR 706] (AP) it is held that no particular mode or form is provided for bringing in a separate property into the stock of the firm by a partner and no deed whatsoever, registered or otherwise is required to be executed by the partner for doing so. It may be noted that after the land under co…

SH. ANKIT MITTAL,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

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

ITA 1511/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR
Section 24Section 24(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 1511/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Ankit Mittal, Vs Income Tax Officer, 105, Vidya Enclave, GH-11, Ward-11(1), Gurgaon-122011 Gurgaon (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ALCPM2482P Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 23.08.2016 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 05.01.2016 of ld. CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. On the facts…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. D.V.S. STEELS & ALLOYS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4238/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-4238/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2006-07)

Section 32Section 32(1)

…own right as an owner. On this issue reliance is also placed on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court & Hon'ble High Court in cases of Jodhamal Kuthalia 82 ITR 570; Poddar Cement P. Ltd 226 ITR 625; Mysore Minerals Ltd. 239 ITR 775; Fazilka Dabwali Transport Co. 270 ITR 398 and several other decisions of Hon'ble High Court viz. CIT vs. Gaekwad & Co. 277 ITR 553; CIT vs. Sarabhai Chemicals P. Ltd. 254 ITR 625; CIT vs. Parthas Trust 249 ITR 120. The sum and substance of these decisions are that the term “ownership” as occurring in S. 32 of IT Act should be assigned a wider meaning. That anyone in possession of propert…

KARAN RAGHAV EXPORTS PVT LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/1152/2011HC Delhi14 Mar 2012
Section 260ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…edings had noticed several judgments, which were referred to and relied upon by the assessee in support of their claim. Reference was specifically made to the decision in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-III Vs. Manjeet Engineering Industries 154 ITR 509 and decision of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amber Corporation 95 ITR 178. The said decisions were distinguished on the ground that the partnership firm could have claimed depreciation but not the partner. The relevant paragraph of the decision dated 1st November, 2010 in the quantum proceedings reads as follows:-…

KARAN RAGHAV EXPORT P LTD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/955/2010HC Delhi01 Nov 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Section 10

…11. In a case like this, the partnership firm which has utilized the said factory premises could have asked for depreciation. This so held by this Court in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income- tax, Delhi-III Vs. Manjeet Engineering Industries [154 ITR 509]. Another judgment rendered by the Rajasthan High Court is to the same effect in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amber Corporation [95 ITR 178] wherein it is held that the firm and the partners would be entitled to depreciation. ITA No. 955 of 2010 Page 13 of 13 12. We, th…

Addl.CIT v. Manjeet Engg. Ind (154 ITR 509) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax