Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT

127 ITR 239High Court1981#22292 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Judgments citing Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Mercury Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 450/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmandy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Mercury Projects Income Tax, Circle 16(2) Private Limited, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aadcm9019R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35D

…expenditure incurred towards increase in authorized share capital is not allowable u/s 35D, it being capital in nature and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co. Ltd vs. CIT reported in (1981) 127 ITR 239 (Del.) which has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (1997) 93 Taxmann.com 5 (S.C), he disallowed a sum of Rs.22,20,400 and brought it to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), who granted relief to the assessee and the Revenue is in ap…

DCIT, Circle - 16(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Maheshwari Mega Ventures Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1352/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(1)

…52/Hyd/14 Maheshwari Mega Ventures Ltd., Hyd. Fee paid for increase in authorized share capital. Since this expenditure was a capital expenditure, AO disallowed the same relying on the decision in the case of Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [1981] 127 ITR 239 (Delhi). 8. Addition of direct depreciation on construction equipment to the WIP of Projects under construction: 8.1 The AO observed that during the year, the assessee- company claimed depreciation @ 15% on PROPS (centring equipment) of Rs.24,80,498/-. The depreciation claimed comes to Rs 3,72,74/-. He held that as this was direct depreciation…

Kuloday Technopack P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3300/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3300/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2423/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri. M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav,DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 172Section 172(1)Section 194CSection 195Section 40

…mah Trading Corporation Ltd v. ITO (1983) 12 Taxman 178 (Bom) iii) Punjab State Industrial Development Carp Ltd v. CIT(1997) 93 Taxman 5 (SC) iv) Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1982) 138 ITR 45 (Guj) v) Bharat Carban & Ribbon Mfg Co. Ltd v. CIT (1981) 127 ITR 239 (Delhi) vi) Vazir Sultan Tabacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT(1988) 41 Taxman 7 (AP) vii) Metro General Credits Ltd. v. CIT(1996) 221 ITR 99 (Mad) I.T.A. No. 3300/Mum/2013 & 2423/Mum/2014 22 . Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal with learned CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under:- “6.3.1. I have carefully considered the su…