Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT

338 ITR 15High Court2011#20556 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Judgments citing Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT

JCIT, (OSD), Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1196/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos. 43-45/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016) Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. -Vs- Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 28Section 29Section 32Section 32(1)Section 80I

…ld AO in not allowing the Depreciation on Dhule unit u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act, the ld CITA observed that the assessee had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd vs CIT reported in 338 ITR 15 (Cal) wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under:- 15. We find that all the authorities below ignored the aforesaid point in their respective orders and thus, there was apparent error on the face of record justifying rectification. Merely because in the original return, there was a mistake on the part of the assessee, such fact cannot be a ground for…

JCIT, (OSD), Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1195/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos. 43-45/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016) Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. -Vs- Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 28Section 29Section 32Section 32(1)Section 80I

…ld AO in not allowing the Depreciation on Dhule unit u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act, the ld CITA observed that the assessee had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd vs CIT reported in 338 ITR 15 (Cal) wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under:- 15. We find that all the authorities below ignored the aforesaid point in their respective orders and thus, there was apparent error on the face of record justifying rectification. Merely because in the original return, there was a mistake on the part of the assessee, such fact cannot be a ground for…

JCIT, (OSD), Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1194/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos. 43-45/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016) Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. -Vs- Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 28Section 29Section 32Section 32(1)Section 80I

…ld AO in not allowing the Depreciation on Dhule unit u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act, the ld CITA observed that the assessee had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd vs CIT reported in 338 ITR 15 (Cal) wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under:- 15. We find that all the authorities below ignored the aforesaid point in their respective orders and thus, there was apparent error on the face of record justifying rectification. Merely because in the original return, there was a mistake on the part of the assessee, such fact cannot be a ground for…

Mohd. Const. Co., Kota vs. Addl. CIT, Kota

ITA 649/JPR/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2017AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl. CIT)
Section 145(3)Section 44A

…s Ltd. V/s PB Desai (1975) 99 ITR 355 (SC) [DPB 3-10] : V.K.J. Builders & Contractors (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 318 ITR 0204 (SC) [DPB 1-2], AO vs. Mass Buildtech (P) Ltd. in ITA No.666/JP/2009 dated 16.07.2010 & in Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 338 ITR 15 (Cal), it was held as under: “AO having rejected the changed method of valuation and determined the closing value of the work-in-progress for the Assessment Year 1986- 87 higher by adding back the adjustment for losses, it was incumbent upon him to follow the same principle in the subsequent years; mistake will appear from the record of the case…

Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT (338 ITR 15) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax