Ashoka Info (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

123 TTJ 77Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#17020 most cited
5

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

Judgments citing Ashoka Info (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

NK TOLL ROAD LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6643/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodn.K. Toll Road Limited Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax 361, 3Rd Flooor, North Wing, -15(2)(1), Room No. 357, Aayakar Reliance Centre, Prabhat Colony Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Vs. Santacruz (East), Mumbai- 400055. Mumbai 400055 Pan – Aadcr0414P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32

…ressway Ltd. (2015) (57 taxmann.com 384) (Mum-Trib) (iv) DCIT Vs. Gujarat Road & Infrastructure Co. Ltd. (2013) 141 ITD 642 (Ahmedabad). (v) Gujarat Road & Infrastructure Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2011) 48 SOT 145 (Ahemdabad) (vi) Ashoka Info (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2009)123 TTJ 77(Pune) P a g e | 12 ITA No. 6643/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 N.K. Toll Road Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 15(2)(1) In the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, we are of a strong conviction that the claim of depreciation on carriageways raised by the assessee in its return of income for the year under consideration could safely be held…

MUMBAI NASIK EXPRESSWAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT (C) 4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3910/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri JD Mistry, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Lakshmi Vara Prasad Gode, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3910/Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Mumbai Nasik Expressway The Pr. Commissioner of Limited Income Tax, Central Circle- 803, 8th Floor, A Wing, One 4, Room No. 663, 6th Floor, Vs. BKC, G Block, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Bandra _East, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स…

SECOND VIVEKANANDA BRIDGE TOLLYWAYCO.PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed accordingly

ITA 19/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 Second Vivekananda V/S. Dcit, Circle-2(2), Bridge Tollway Co. Pvt. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Ltd., Block Gp, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Salt Lake Electronics Kolkata-69 Complex, Kolkata-91 [Pan No.Aahcs 8573 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Rudra, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 21-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 11-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Calls Into Question The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 04.11.2016 Passed In Case No.1221/Cit(A)-1/C-2(2)/2015-16 Upholding Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Its Depreciation Claimed Of ₹41,99,22,054 In Respect Of Licence To Collect The Toll Revenue Of The Second Vivekananda Bridge (Treated As The Relevant Intangible Asset) & Disallowing Leave Encashment Provision Of ₹1,84,562/- U/S 43B(F) In Assessment Order Dated 11.05.2015, Involving Proceeding U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short As ‘The Act’. 2. We Come To Former Issue Of Depreciation Disallowance In Respect Of Assessee’S Licence To Collect Toll Charges On The Second Vivekananda Bridge.

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43B

…rges as per the Concessionaire Agreement, had been examined in details by the then Assessing Officer and allowed vide Order u/s 143(3) dated 15/12/2011 the A.O had referred to the Pune ITAT's Order dated 31/12/2008 in the case of Ashoka Info Pvt. Ltd. [(2008) 123 TTJ 77 (Pune ITAT)] on similar facts to that of the case of the appellant. For the next Assessment Year, viz., 2010-11, also, the A.O after due examination of relevant details had accepted the appellant's claim for deduction of depreciation on Intangible Asset as made in the Return vide order u/s 143(3) dated 22/03/2013. Secondly, it was argued that the…

BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 10(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7619/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Paras S. Savla, A.R. &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swarup, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)

…4/2003 ITA 75/2003 ITA 653/2005] (Mumbai Tribunal) • ITO vs Medicorp Technologies India Ltd. [122 TTJ 394] (Chennai Tribunal) 29 M/s. Bayer CropScience Ltd. • ACIT vs Real Image Tech. (P) Ltd. [120 TTJ 983] (Chennai Tribunal) • Ashoka Info (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [123 TTJ 77] (Pune Tribunal).” 4.3 I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant, the impugned assessment order. The product trial run expenditures are incurred by the appellant towards manufacture of a new product in the existing line of business. Since the insecticides and pesticides are toxic in nature, such products needs to be registered…

M/S CYBER PARK DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION LTD. vs. DCIT,

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

ITA 1549/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Cyber Park Develoment & Construction Ltd. Plot Nos.76 & 77, Electronic Phase I, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 100. … Appellant Pa No.Aaccc1113H Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)

…old rights is nothing but a commercial right falling within the definition of intangible assets as defined u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. In support of this, assessee-company has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ashoka Info (P) Ltd., vs. ACIT (123 TTJ 77 and Skyline Caterers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No.2965/Mum/07). An alternative claim was made before the AO that in case depreciation was disallowed for any reason, expenditure incurred towards development of commercial space given to STPI may be allowed as revenue expenditure and placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court…