Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT

196 ITR 188Supreme Court of India1992#272 most cited

What is Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Provisions in taxing statutes that grant incentives, concessions, or exemptions for promoting economic growth and industrialization must be interpreted liberally and purposively. Any restrictions placed on such provisions should also be construed reasonably to advance their objective, not frustrate it.

289

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2004 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bajaj Tempo v. CIT · liberal interpretation · incentive provisions · economic growth · Section 32(1)(iia) · additional depreciation · Section 80IA · Section 80HHC · deduction provisions · tax exemptions · purposive construction

Also reported as

62 Taxmann 4803 SCC 78

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 80IASection 143(1)Section 80HHCSection 139(1)Section 80IBSection 10BSection 263

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)(iia)section 80hhsection 80ia(4)section 80hhcdeduction under section 80iainfrastructure facilitydeduction u/s 80iatax benefitadditional depreciationsection 80iasection 80asection 80i

Judgments citing Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT

Gopal Saran Darbari, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1249/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, Sh. Saurabh Goel, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54

…h / non-compliance the benefit due to the assessee by the legislature cannot be denied particularly when there is substantive compliance made. Section 54 is a beneficial section and as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs CIT(1992) 196 ITR 188, the provisions of a beneficial section should be construed liberally. 9.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 148 observed as under:- " The Contextual meaning has to be ascertained and given effect to A Provision for deduction, exemption or relief should be construed reasonable and in…

Gopal Saran Darbari, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1248/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, Sh. Saurabh Goel, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54

…h / non-compliance the benefit due to the assessee by the legislature cannot be denied particularly when there is substantive compliance made. Section 54 is a beneficial section and as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs CIT(1992) 196 ITR 188, the provisions of a beneficial section should be construed liberally. 9.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 148 observed as under:- " The Contextual meaning has to be ascertained and given effect to A Provision for deduction, exemption or relief should be construed reasonable and in…

DCIT, CC-Xxv, Kolkata vs. M/S Warren Tea Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 113/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.110 To 113/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2003-2004 To 2006-2007) Dcit, Cc-Xxv, Kolkata, Vs. M/S Warren Tea Ltd., 4B, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Hungerford Street, Suvira Kolkata-700107 House, Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw 2894 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bishwanath Das, Jcit "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Agnibesh Sengupta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: The Above Four Appeals Are Directed By The Revenue Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxv, Kolkata In Case Of One Assessee For The Different Assessment Years I.E. Ays.2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07, Respectively. 2. Since Common Grounds Are Involved In All The Appeals Of The Revenue, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, We Proceed To Dispose Off All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Involved In The Business Of Growing, Manufacturing & Trading Of Tea & Travels Services. In The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07, The Assessee Filed Returns Of Income Declaring Total Income Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Agnibesh SenguptaFor Respondent: Shri Bishwanath Das, JCIT
Section 33A

…e purpose of investments in new areas, fresh planting, replanting etc. We are also of the opinion that provisions should be interpreted liberally which derives support from the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. reported in 196 ITR 188 (SC). Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the contention of the Id. Counsel for the assessee that such utilization of money amounting to Rs.4,12,01,500/- though utilized in the preceding year qualify as assets purchased by the assessee against withdrawal made by it from NABARD is a valid one. The above proposition also derives support from th…

DCIT, CC-Xxv, Kolkata vs. M/S Warren Tea Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 112/KOL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.110 To 113/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2003-2004 To 2006-2007) Dcit, Cc-Xxv, Kolkata, Vs. M/S Warren Tea Ltd., 4B, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Hungerford Street, Suvira Kolkata-700107 House, Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw 2894 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bishwanath Das, Jcit "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Agnibesh Sengupta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: The Above Four Appeals Are Directed By The Revenue Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxv, Kolkata In Case Of One Assessee For The Different Assessment Years I.E. Ays.2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07, Respectively. 2. Since Common Grounds Are Involved In All The Appeals Of The Revenue, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, We Proceed To Dispose Off All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Involved In The Business Of Growing, Manufacturing & Trading Of Tea & Travels Services. In The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07, The Assessee Filed Returns Of Income Declaring Total Income Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Agnibesh SenguptaFor Respondent: Shri Bishwanath Das, JCIT
Section 33A

…e purpose of investments in new areas, fresh planting, replanting etc. We are also of the opinion that provisions should be interpreted liberally which derives support from the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. reported in 196 ITR 188 (SC). Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the contention of the Id. Counsel for the assessee that such utilization of money amounting to Rs.4,12,01,500/- though utilized in the preceding year qualify as assets purchased by the assessee against withdrawal made by it from NABARD is a valid one. The above proposition also derives support from th…

DCIT, CC-Xxv, Kolkata vs. M/S Warren Tea Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 111/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.110 To 113/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2003-2004 To 2006-2007) Dcit, Cc-Xxv, Kolkata, Vs. M/S Warren Tea Ltd., 4B, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Hungerford Street, Suvira Kolkata-700107 House, Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw 2894 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bishwanath Das, Jcit "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Agnibesh Sengupta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: The Above Four Appeals Are Directed By The Revenue Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxv, Kolkata In Case Of One Assessee For The Different Assessment Years I.E. Ays.2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07, Respectively. 2. Since Common Grounds Are Involved In All The Appeals Of The Revenue, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, We Proceed To Dispose Off All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Involved In The Business Of Growing, Manufacturing & Trading Of Tea & Travels Services. In The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07, The Assessee Filed Returns Of Income Declaring Total Income Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Agnibesh SenguptaFor Respondent: Shri Bishwanath Das, JCIT
Section 33A

…e purpose of investments in new areas, fresh planting, replanting etc. We are also of the opinion that provisions should be interpreted liberally which derives support from the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. reported in 196 ITR 188 (SC). Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the contention of the Id. Counsel for the assessee that such utilization of money amounting to Rs.4,12,01,500/- though utilized in the preceding year qualify as assets purchased by the assessee against withdrawal made by it from NABARD is a valid one. The above proposition also derives support from th…

DCIT, CC-Xxv, Kolkata vs. M/S Warren Tea Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 110/KOL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.110 To 113/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2003-2004 To 2006-2007) Dcit, Cc-Xxv, Kolkata, Vs. M/S Warren Tea Ltd., 4B, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Hungerford Street, Suvira Kolkata-700107 House, Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw 2894 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bishwanath Das, Jcit "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Agnibesh Sengupta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: The Above Four Appeals Are Directed By The Revenue Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxv, Kolkata In Case Of One Assessee For The Different Assessment Years I.E. Ays.2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07, Respectively. 2. Since Common Grounds Are Involved In All The Appeals Of The Revenue, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, We Proceed To Dispose Off All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Involved In The Business Of Growing, Manufacturing & Trading Of Tea & Travels Services. In The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07, The Assessee Filed Returns Of Income Declaring Total Income Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Agnibesh SenguptaFor Respondent: Shri Bishwanath Das, JCIT
Section 33A

…e purpose of investments in new areas, fresh planting, replanting etc. We are also of the opinion that provisions should be interpreted liberally which derives support from the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. reported in 196 ITR 188 (SC). Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the contention of the Id. Counsel for the assessee that such utilization of money amounting to Rs.4,12,01,500/- though utilized in the preceding year qualify as assets purchased by the assessee against withdrawal made by it from NABARD is a valid one. The above proposition also derives support from th…

ITO WD 2(4), Thane vs. Shiv Om Universal, Badlapur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6754/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Vachaspati TripathiFor Respondent: Shri Shriram Bajaj
Section 143(3)Section 80

…e same is applicable, it is to be construed liberally (refer: Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. (1990) 4 SCC 256: AIR 1991 SC 2049 (at pp. 2051-52); Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave AIR 1970 SC 755). We also derive support from Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 (SC), wherein it stands held as under: [Head Notes at pg. 189] ‘A provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally; and since a provision for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it too has to be construed so as to advance the objective of…

Max Aerospace and Aviation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT (OSD) 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 43/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 43/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Max Aerospace & Aviation Ltd. Jt. Cit(Osd)-8(2), बिाम/ Malkani Chambers, Off. Nehru Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 099 Mumbai-400 020 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm 9671 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…st the legislative intent that the whole facility is not to be developed in order to be eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. For this purpose reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo v. CIT (196 ITR 188) wherein it has been emphasized that a provision in taxing statue granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally. All the decisions stated hereinabove have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and held that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act even if it has deve…

Abott India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3472/Mum/2013 and ITA No

ITA 832/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Morya Pratap
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…, in nutshell the assessee submitted that as per the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee is entitled for additional depreciation as provided under the Act. The assessee relied on the decision in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 188(SC). The A.O. rejected the contentions of the assessee holding that provisions of section 32(1){iia) of the Act, clearly shows that the additional depreciation is allowed to an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. The assets or plant and machinery acquired by it for the purpose of enhancing its t…

Abbott India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3472/Mum/2013 and ITA No

ITA 3472/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Morya Pratap
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…, in nutshell the assessee submitted that as per the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the assessee is entitled for additional depreciation as provided under the Act. The assessee relied on the decision in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 188(SC). The A.O. rejected the contentions of the assessee holding that provisions of section 32(1){iia) of the Act, clearly shows that the additional depreciation is allowed to an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. The assets or plant and machinery acquired by it for the purpose of enhancing its t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Addison & Company Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 862/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 862/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. Sahadevan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…up of unabsorbed depreciation. This additional benefit in the form of additional allowance u/s 32(1)(iia) is one time benefit to encourage the industrialization and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188, the provisions related to it have to be construed reasonably, liberally and purposive to make the provision meaningful while granting the additional allowance. This additional benefit is to give impetus to industrialization and the basic intention and purpose of these provisions can be reasonably and liberally held that the assessee deserves to…

M/S Parnika Commercial & Estates (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5724/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Chandra Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80Section 80I

…he deduction under section 80IA (4) of the Act. Accordingly, the modified ground, which is common in all the four appeals is allowed in favour of the assessee. ” 12. Let us remind ourselves that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd vs CIT, 196 ITR 188, has ordained that taxing statute granting 20 ITA No.5724/Del./2010 incentives for promoting growth and development should be liberally construed. 13. Now, the question arises as to whether the term ‘contractor’ is not essentially contradictory to the term ‘developer’. In fact, in every development the term ‘developer’ will definitely be a ‘wor…

Ambo Exports Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen, Cir-3(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 503/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharya, JCIT
Section 10Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…1 Ambo Exports Ltd., AY 2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri M. Balaganesh, AM & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A No.503/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ambo Exports Ltd. (Presently known Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, as Ambo Exports Industries Ltd.) Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 20.06.2016 Date of pronouncement: 01.07.2016 For the Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharya, JCIT ORDER Per Shri M. Balaganesh, AM: This appeal by assessee is arising out of order…

ITO 25(2)(2)), Mumbai vs. Prathmesh Realtors, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed on the afore-said terms

ITA 3382/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3382/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income Tax Officer-25(2)(2), Prathmesh Realtors बनाम/ C-11, Bldg., Room No. 106, A-101, Sweta Park, Daulat Nagar Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Road No. 2, Borivali (E), Vs. Bandra(E), Mumbai-51 Mumbai-400 066 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaifp 8580 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Pandian ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Tarun Ghia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.03.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 10.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 14.2.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 12.3.2013. 2. The First Issue Under Appeal (Raised Vide Grounds 1 & 2) Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law Of The Proportionate Deduction To The Assessee’S, A Builder & Developer, Housing Project By The Name ‘Prathmesh Heritage’, At Mira Road (E)

For Appellant: Shri S. PandianFor Respondent: Shri Tarun Ghia
Section 143(3)Section 80

…ch is the subject matter of exemption, is found, on such construction, to be within the ambit of the provision, that a liberal approach is to be adopted toward effectuating the object of the provision, for which we may refer to Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 (SC) relied upon by the tribunal in the various 4 ITO vs. Prathmesh Realtors orders, as far as appears on a reading of their extracts as listed in the tribunal’s order for A.Y. 2007-08 (supra). The interpretation is also in accord with a purposive and liberal approach, advocated by the apex court in, inter alia, Bajaj Tempo Ltd. (supra). The pro…

Tagros Chemicals India Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 703/CHNY/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.703/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S Tagros Chemicals India Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Jhaver Centre, Raja Annamalai V. Income Tax, Building, Corporate Circle – 3(1), 72 (Old No.19), Marshals Road, Chennai - 600 034. Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Pan : Aaact 2952 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Unni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. H. Kabila, JCIT
Section 32(1)(iia)

…ion. This additional benefit in the form of additional allowance u/s 32(1)(iia) is one time benefit to encourage the industrialization and in view of the decision 6 I.T.A. No.703/Mds/15 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188, the provisions related to it have to be construed reasonably, liberally and purposive to make the provision meaningful while granting the additional allowance. This additional benefit is to give impetus to industrialization and the basic intention and purpose of these provisions can be reasonably and liberally held that the assessee deserves to…

Opera Clothing P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 8083/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Opera Clothing Vs Ito-18(1)(3), Private Limited, Mumbai 2 & 4, Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate, S.J. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaafo4522H

Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s Opera Clothing vs ITO-18(1)(3), Private Limited, Mumbai 2 & 4, Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate, S.J. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AAAFO4522H "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by None राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Love Kumar-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 12/05/2016 12/05/…

Fresh & Honest Cafe Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1485/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1499 & 1500/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1485/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Fresh & Honest Café Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, V. Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Company Circle Ii(1), 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaacf 1516 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 32(1)(iia)

…up of unabsorbed depreciation. This additional benefit in the form of additional allowance u/s 32(1)(iia) is one time benefit to encourage the industrialization and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188, the provisions related to it have to be construed reasonably, liberally and purposive to make the provision meaningful while granting the additional allowance. This additional benefit is to give impetus to industrialization and the basic intention and purpose of these provisions can be reasonably and liberally held that the assessee deserves to…

Fresh & Honest Cafe Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1500/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1499 & 1500/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1485/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Fresh & Honest Café Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, V. Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Company Circle Ii(1), 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaacf 1516 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 32(1)(iia)

…up of unabsorbed depreciation. This additional benefit in the form of additional allowance u/s 32(1)(iia) is one time benefit to encourage the industrialization and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188, the provisions related to it have to be construed reasonably, liberally and purposive to make the provision meaningful while granting the additional allowance. This additional benefit is to give impetus to industrialization and the basic intention and purpose of these provisions can be reasonably and liberally held that the assessee deserves to…

Fresh & Honest Cafe Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1499/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1499 & 1500/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1485/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Fresh & Honest Café Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, V. Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Company Circle Ii(1), 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaacf 1516 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 32(1)(iia)

…up of unabsorbed depreciation. This additional benefit in the form of additional allowance u/s 32(1)(iia) is one time benefit to encourage the industrialization and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188, the provisions related to it have to be construed reasonably, liberally and purposive to make the provision meaningful while granting the additional allowance. This additional benefit is to give impetus to industrialization and the basic intention and purpose of these provisions can be reasonably and liberally held that the assessee deserves to…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Sandeep Abrol, Bangalore

In the result: The Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1322/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri George George Ki.T.(I.T) A. No.1322/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Sandeep Abrol, Tax, (Int. Taxation), Apartment No.31, 14, Circle 1(1), Bengaluru. Cornwall Block, Prestige Kinsington Garden, Bengaluru-560 013 Pan Azhpa 3903E Appellant Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, C.A
Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54E

…Extensively quoting the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd v. I ITO reported in 247 ITR 821 (SC) and also in the cases of (i) CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd (196 ITR 149 – SC) and (ii) Bajaj Tempo Ltd v. CIT [196 ITR 188 (SC)], the earlier Bench of this Tribunal was of the view that – “9.8…………………………………………………………………………… Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the CBDT’s Circular No.3/2008 and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court for interpreting statues, we of the considered view that it would be in the fitness of t…