Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.

226 ITR 625Supreme Court of India1997#356 most cited

What is Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd. authority for?

Amendments to tax laws that are explanatory, declaratory, curative, or clarificatory in nature are judicially construed as retrospective, especially if they are intended to remedy unintended consequences.

244

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Allied Motors v CIT · CIT v Podar Cement · retrospective amendment · curative amendment · declaratory amendment · explanatory amendment · unintended consequences · tax law · assessment year

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 143(1)Section 40A(7)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

section 140a(1)section 215section 207section 2(43)section 262section 209section 2(1)section 208section 210section 115jaasection 140aminimum alternate tax

Judgments citing Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.

Fiduciary Shares & Stocks P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 321/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfiduciary Shares & Stock P. Ltd. Acit, Circle 4(2) Unit No. T7B, 5Th Floor, Phoenix Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road House, Block No. 2, Phoenix Mills Vs. Mumbai 400020 Compound, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai 400013 Pan - Aaacf9759N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 73

…as inserted, the learned A.R. for the assessee referred to/placed reliance on various decisions of the Hon'ble apex Court, inter alia, on CIT vs. J.H. Gotla (156 ITR 323), CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. (304 ITR 308) and CIT vs. Podar Cement P. Ltd. (226 ITR 625). It was therefore contended by the learned A.R. for the assessee that in view of the amendment made to Explanation to section 73 of the Act, the loss incurred by the assessee on account of trading in shares is not a speculative loss and hence the same can be adjusted against other business income like brokerage and commission. 5.4 It was contend…

ACIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Celetronix India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5433/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) बनधम/ Celetronix India Pvt Ltd, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C/O Jabil Circuit (I) Pvt.Ltd., Tax -8(1), Vs. Arena House, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.103, Room No.210, 2Nd Floor, Road No.12, Opp Tunga Paradise, Aayaker Bhavan, Marol, Midc, Andheri (E), M K Road, Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaact7548K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross-Objection No.81/Mum/2010 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Celetronix India Pvt Ltd, बनधम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax 8(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Ms.Radha K NarangFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjiv Shah, Shailesh
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ther V. Union Of India And Others (2 SCC 536) and General Finance Co. and Another V/s 7 CO No.81/M/2010 ACIT (257 ITR 338)(SC), K P Varghese Vis ITO (131 ITR 597) (SC), Allied Motors (P) Ltd Vis CIT (224 ITR 677)(SC), CIT V/s Podar Cement Pvt.Ltd and others (226 ITR 625)(SC), CIT V/s Alom Extrusions Ltd (319 ITR 306) (SC), Textile Machiner Corporation Ltd Vis CIT (107 ITR 195 (SC), CIT V/s Indian Aluminum Co.Ltd. (108 ITR 367) (SC) and ITO V/s DCM Soft (P) Ltd (115 TTJ 469) (Chennai Tribunal). 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant material placed before us and also various case law…

Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkatta vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8339/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…cerned – in other words, has, in any case, the beneficial interest in the flats, which he holds out to the world as belonging to him. Income-tax law recognises beneficial ownership as against legal or titular ownership (CIT vs. Podar Cement (Pvt.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC)), even as the issue before is qua the payment for the renovation of assessee’s residence. No case of he being required to reside in these flats for the purpose of the business of the stated companies, even assuming them to be the owner, has been made out, or of the negotiations with the contractor being carried out by the assessee (and his w…

Shri Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkatta vs. Dy.CIT.C.C.2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3820/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…cerned – in other words, has, in any case, the beneficial interest in the flats, which he holds out to the world as belonging to him. Income-tax law recognises beneficial ownership as against legal or titular ownership (CIT vs. Podar Cement (Pvt.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC)), even as the issue before is qua the payment for the renovation of assessee’s residence. No case of he being required to reside in these flats for the purpose of the business of the stated companies, even assuming them to be the owner, has been made out, or of the negotiations with the contractor being carried out by the assessee (and his w…

Kedia Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Kedia Shares & Stock Acit, Brokers Limited, Circle-4(3), बनाम/ 418, Commerce House, Room No.649, 6Th Floor, Vs. 140, Nagindas Master Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400023 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaack2528E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 32oSection 42

…A.P. Paper Mills 225 ITR 262 (A.P.), CIT vs Orient Longman Pvt. Ltd. 227 ITR 68 (A.P.), CIT vs Himachal Pradesh Mineral and Industrial Development Corporation 234 ITR 509 (HP), Mysore Minerals Ltd. 239 ITR 775 (SC), relying on CIT vs Poddar Cements Pvt. Ltd. 226 ITR 625 (SC) held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Revathi 245 ITR 686 (Mad.), CIT vs Thanthai PT Corporation 248 ITR 632 (Mad.), CIT vs WEP Perferals Ltd. (2014) 362 ITR 508 (Karn.) and CIT vs Jawhar Kala Kendra (2014) 362 ITR 515 (Raj.) supports the case of the assessee. 2.5. The ratio laid down in ICDS Ltd.…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S.Rituraj Textile & General

ITA/9/2004HC Delhi29 Mar 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 16(3)

…WTA Nos. 7 to 11 of 2004 Page 1 of 22 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 28th April 2016 Decision on: May 16, 2016 + WTA 7/2004 COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Anup Kesari, Advocate. versus MOHAN EXPORTS INDIA P. LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. V.P.Gupta and Mr. Anuj Bansal, Advocates. With + WTA…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Harjeev Aggarwal

ITA/8/2004HC Delhi10 Mar 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 16(3)

…WTA Nos. 7 to 11 of 2004 Page 1 of 22 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 28th April 2016 Decision on: May 16, 2016 + WTA 7/2004 COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Anup Kesari, Advocate. versus MOHAN EXPORTS INDIA P. LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. V.P.Gupta and Mr. Anuj Bansal, Advocates. With + WTA…

Sidharth Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3888/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06 Sh. Sidharth Jain, C-780, New Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(2), Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi (Pan: Aaapj2273Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 69A

…as that the assessee could not pay the municipal taxes. In other words, minus the said exception, the assessee was practically the owner of the said property. Thus in accordance with the decision of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Poddar Cement (P) Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625(SC), which has held as under:- “We are conscious of the settled position that under the common law ‘owner’ means a person who has got valid title legally conveyed to him after complying with the requirements of law such as Transfer of 5 AY: 2005-06 Property Act, Registration Act, etc. But in the contest of s. 22 of Income Tax Act, 1961 having reg…

DCIT 13(1), Mumbai vs. Ajaykumar Abhay Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7509/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7509/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dy. Cit-13(1), Ajaykumar Abhay Jain Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, 114, Sarang Street, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 003 Vs. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpj 0071 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Mohammed Rizwan ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shekhar Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed RizwanFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar Gupta
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 56

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ए” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7509/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dy. CIT-13(1), Ajaykumar Abhay Jain Room No. 418, 4th Floor, 114, Sarang Street, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 003 Vs. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABPJ 0071 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Mohammed Rizwan ""य…

ITO 2(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Walchand People First Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3527/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2543/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

Section 250

…from the assessment year 2004-05 and onwards and the same has attained finality. The assessee company relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC) and CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the “owner” for the purpose of Section 22 of the Act is the persons who is the beneficial owner of the property, who earns the income from the house property in his own right. The assessee company refers to clause 2(d) of the Agreement to Lease executed with M/s Walchand & Co. Pvt. Ltd. which read…

Walchand People First Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 2(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2543/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2543/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

Section 250

…from the assessment year 2004-05 and onwards and the same has attained finality. The assessee company relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC) and CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the “owner” for the purpose of Section 22 of the Act is the persons who is the beneficial owner of the property, who earns the income from the house property in his own right. The assessee company refers to clause 2(d) of the Agreement to Lease executed with M/s Walchand & Co. Pvt. Ltd. which read…

Raj Dulari Bhasin vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/11/2004HC Delhi21 Dec 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 16(3)

…WTA Nos. 7 to 11 of 2004 Page 1 of 22 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 28th April 2016 Decision on: May 16, 2016 + WTA 7/2004 COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Anup Kesari, Advocate. versus MOHAN EXPORTS INDIA P. LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. V.P.Gupta and Mr. Anuj Bansal, Advocates. With + WTA…

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)

…r distribution machinery and that he draws power from the said system in his 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…

ITO, Ward - 42(3), Kolkata vs. Shri Sushil Sarkar, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 518/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 22Section 27Section 50CSection 53A

…While delivering the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble High Court relied on the decisions of Hon'ble ITA No.518/Kol/2011 A.Y.2005-06 ITO Wd-42(3) Kol. V. Shri Sushil Sarkar Page 4 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Podder Cement Pvt. Ltd. reported in 226 ITR 625 (SC) and decision in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 239 ITR 775 (SC). The similar view was taken by the Hon'ble ITAT D-Bench, Kolkata in the case of Sharad Kr. Goenka, HUF Vs. ITO, Ward-36(2), Kolkata in ITA No. 1168/Kol/2007 dated 20-12-2007. The Hon'ble ITAT relied on the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case…

Mahindra & Mahindra Employees Stock Option Trust, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.4 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2389/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri R.C.Sharma, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.2389/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mahindra & Mahindra Adcit, Range-12(2), Employees‟ Stock Option Mumbai-20 Trust, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai- 400001 स्थामी रेखा सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahfm 9583 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यनधावरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri H.P.Mahajani याजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P.Singh सुनर्ाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma, Am The Present Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A) -28, Mumbai, Dated 26-3-2015 For A.Y.2011-12. 2. During The Course Of Hearing The Assessee Has Filed Concise Grounds Of Appeal. These Have Been Considered By Us For The Adjudication Of This Appeal & Are Reproduced Hereunder :-

For Appellant: Shri H.P.MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 143(3)Section 250

…. 5.10. In nutshell, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the shares were capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act and reliance was placed by him on the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Poddar Cement Ltd. 226 ITR 625, 640 for the proposition that every owner does not possess all the rights and ownership may be restricted by law or by any agreement made by the parties interse. It was submitted by the ld. counsel that whole of funds were held by the trust for the benefit of the employees and as such the ownership of these shares, in the hands of the trust, was…

Edwise Consultants P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4121/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 40A(2)(a)

…that the registration is only a formality and the same would not disentitle the assessee from claiming depreciation, even if it is registered in the name of its directors. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following case law:- (a) Poddar cements Ltd (226 ITR 625) (b) ITO Vs. Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd (2012)(13 ITR (Tri) 594 20 I T A N o . 5 3 7 6 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 1 , 5 9 4 / M/ 2 0 1 3 a n d 4 1 2 1 / M/ 2 0 1 4 (c) CIT Vs. Aravali Finlease Ltd (2012)9341 ITR 282)(Guj) (d) CIT Vs. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd (2002)(257 ITR 88)(Delhi) 24. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the co-ordinate bench of Tri…

Edwise Consultants P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 594/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 40A(2)(a)

…that the registration is only a formality and the same would not disentitle the assessee from claiming depreciation, even if it is registered in the name of its directors. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following case law:- (a) Poddar cements Ltd (226 ITR 625) (b) ITO Vs. Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd (2012)(13 ITR (Tri) 594 20 I T A N o . 5 3 7 6 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 1 , 5 9 4 / M/ 2 0 1 3 a n d 4 1 2 1 / M/ 2 0 1 4 (c) CIT Vs. Aravali Finlease Ltd (2012)9341 ITR 282)(Guj) (d) CIT Vs. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd (2002)(257 ITR 88)(Delhi) 24. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the co-ordinate bench of Tri…

Edwise Consultants P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5376/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 40A(2)(a)

…that the registration is only a formality and the same would not disentitle the assessee from claiming depreciation, even if it is registered in the name of its directors. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following case law:- (a) Poddar cements Ltd (226 ITR 625) (b) ITO Vs. Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd (2012)(13 ITR (Tri) 594 20 I T A N o . 5 3 7 6 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 1 , 5 9 4 / M/ 2 0 1 3 a n d 4 1 2 1 / M/ 2 0 1 4 (c) CIT Vs. Aravali Finlease Ltd (2012)9341 ITR 282)(Guj) (d) CIT Vs. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd (2002)(257 ITR 88)(Delhi) 24. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the co-ordinate bench of Tri…

Commissioner of Income Tax –V vs. Kapil Nagpal

ITA/609/2014HC Delhi11 Sept 2015
Section 143Section 260Section 271Section 54Section 54F

…the claim of the Assessee under Section 54F could not be rejected on the ground that he was an owner of more than one residential house as on 8th November 2006. (i) In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Podar Cements (P) Limited [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC), the Assessee could claim exemption on the basis of the agreement to sell only without it being registered. The agreement to sell showed that a substantial 2015:DHC:7552-DB ITA 609/2014 Page 11 of 15 payment of Rs. 2 crores was made on the date of the agreement itself. The balance payment of Rs. 22 lakhs was m…

C I T vs. M/S Bharat Hotels

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA/69/2000HC Delhi24 Jul 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A

…pply "as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. 18. In any event even for the period earlier than 1st April 1988, in view of the decision in Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Podar Cement Private Limited (1997) 226 ITR 625 and Mysore Minerals v CIT (supra) the legal position is no longer res integra. In ITAs 69, 70, 71, 72, & 73/2000 Page 17 of 21 Podar Cement Private Limited the Supreme Court was called upon to consider whether the income derived by the assessee on the flat…