CIT(A) v. Haryana Hotels Ltd.

276 ITR 521High Court2005#9645 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 43BSection 72

Judgments citing CIT(A) v. Haryana Hotels Ltd.

ISHAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELPOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

ITA 686/ASR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(3)

…ates that claim for unabsorbed depreciation has not been allowed in processing, which legally should have been allowed. 7.1 In support of his argument he relied upon the decision of the jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT v Haryana Hotels Ltd [2005] 276 ITR 521 ( Punjab and Haryana ) , where the Hon’ble court has observed that : “there is no provision under the Act which makes it mandatory for the assessee to file return for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation which is to be notified by the assessing officer as is in the case of unabsorbed business loss.” 7.2 He further referred to the…

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, P.KULA vs. M/S HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.

Appeal is dismissed in view of

ITA/28/2006HC Punjab & Haryana07 Apr 2025

Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN

Section 139(1)Section 32(2)

…the ld. g carry forward of the unabsorbed when as per Section 32(2) it is to the succeeding year, and when the year has not been allowed to be turn was not filed within the time the Act?” t submits that Tribunal granted basis of judgment of this High 2005) 276 ITR 521. This appeal has been filed by the Department med that SLP No.4468/2006 filed g decision in Haryana Hotels t t d h f d o e e e d h l t d Manju 2025.04.09 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-28-200 (supra), has has attained above said raised is ans 3. the specific decision of ITR 521.…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2461/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanti.T.A. No.2461/Del/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Splendor Landbase Of Income, Central Vs. Limited, Circle-3, F-38/2, Splendor House, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaeca3986E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 215/Del/2016 In I.T.A. No. 2461/Del/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 M/S Splendor Landbase Assistant Commissioner Limited, Vs. Of Income, Central Circle- F-38/2, Splendor House, 3, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaeca3986E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kr. Chopra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2461/DEL/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE OF INCOME, CENTRAL VS. LIMITED, CIRCLE-3, F-38/2, SPLENDOR HOUSE, NEW DELHI OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAECA3986E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND C.O. NO. 215/DEL/2016 IN I.T.A. No. 2461/DEL/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LIMITED, VS. OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE- F-38/2, SPLENDOR HOUSE, 3, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI PHASE-II, NEW DE…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2 vs. BRITISH MOTOR CAR CO.(1934) LTD

ITA/1031/2017HC Delhi09 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 147Section 32(2)Section 72Section 73

…t to Section 32(2) of the Act, which removed the cap, was prospective and effective only from 01.04.2002. The CIT(A) however reversed that decision relying upon CIT v. Govind Nagar Sugar Ltd., (2011) 334 ITR 13 (Del); CIT V s. Haryana Hotels Ltd., (2005) 276 ITR 521 (P&H); CIT v. Fabriquip Private Ltd., (2003) 260 ITR 207 (Guj), and several other decisions. 5. The ITAT, by its impugned order, upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and relied upon a subsequent judgment of the Gujarat High Court in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, 354 ITR 244 (Guj). That judgment had been followed by this Court in Mo…

ADIT, BANGALORE vs. HAZARATH MAHABOOB SUBHANI (HMS), TUMKUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 748/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 12ASection 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2008-09 The Assistant Director of Vs. M/s. Hazarath Mahaboob Subhani Income Tax (E), (HMS) Education Society, Shettihalli Circle 17(1), Main Road, Tumkur – 572 103. PAN: AAATH 4185R Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT CO No.27/Bang/2013 [in ITA No.748/Bang/2012] Assessment year : 2008-09 M/s. Hazarath Mahaboob Subhani Vs. The Assistant Director of Education Society, Tumkur. Income Tax(E), Circle 17(1), PAN: AAATH 4185R Bangalore. CROSS OBJECTOR RESPO…

ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. ANIL PRINERS LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5859/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2009-10 Acit, Anil Printers Ltd. Circle-6(1), R. No.506, 2, Kakad Industrial Estate, बनाम/ 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Matunga West, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400016 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aacca6914C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 114JSection 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 32(2)Section 32oSection 42Section 80

…t in the impugned order by contending that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by placing reliance upon the decision in CIT vs Shri Subhu Laxmi Mills Ltd. 249 ITR 795(SC), CIT vs Govind Nagar Sugar Ltd. 334 ITR 13 (Del.), CIT vs Haryana Hotels Ltd. 276 ITR 521 (P & H). This claim of the assessee was not controverted by the ld. DR and he relied upon the assessment order. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of computers stationary, ATM Cards, ITC 3 Cards, PIN Ma…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 3638/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/sh. (Dr.) Rakesh Gupta & Somil Aggarwal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sh. B.D. Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

…it is hereby declared that the provisions of this sub-section shall apply whether or not the assessee has claimed the deduction in computing his total income." 3.3 It is further seen that Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Haryana Hotels Ltd. (276 ITR 521) has held that it is the duty of AO to allow the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation. 3.4. In view of the above facts and legal position on the issue I am of the view that the A.O. was duty bound to grant the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation at correct amount as per law which has been claimed at Rs.12,74, 14,203/- and which can be fu…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 3637/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/sh. (Dr.) Rakesh Gupta & Somil Aggarwal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sh. B.D. Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

…it is hereby declared that the provisions of this sub-section shall apply whether or not the assessee has claimed the deduction in computing his total income." 3.3 It is further seen that Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Haryana Hotels Ltd. (276 ITR 521) has held that it is the duty of AO to allow the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation. 3.4. In view of the above facts and legal position on the issue I am of the view that the A.O. was duty bound to grant the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation at correct amount as per law which has been claimed at Rs.12,74, 14,203/- and which can be fu…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 3636/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/sh. (Dr.) Rakesh Gupta & Somil Aggarwal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sh. B.D. Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

…it is hereby declared that the provisions of this sub-section shall apply whether or not the assessee has claimed the deduction in computing his total income." 3.3 It is further seen that Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Haryana Hotels Ltd. (276 ITR 521) has held that it is the duty of AO to allow the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation. 3.4. In view of the above facts and legal position on the issue I am of the view that the A.O. was duty bound to grant the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation at correct amount as per law which has been claimed at Rs.12,74, 14,203/- and which can be fu…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 3635/DEL/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/sh. (Dr.) Rakesh Gupta & Somil Aggarwal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sh. B.D. Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

…it is hereby declared that the provisions of this sub-section shall apply whether or not the assessee has claimed the deduction in computing his total income." 3.3 It is further seen that Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Haryana Hotels Ltd. (276 ITR 521) has held that it is the duty of AO to allow the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation. 3.4. In view of the above facts and legal position on the issue I am of the view that the A.O. was duty bound to grant the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation at correct amount as per law which has been claimed at Rs.12,74, 14,203/- and which can be fu…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOVIND NAGAR SUGAR LIMITED

ITA/164/2008HC Delhi25 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 32(2)Section 80

…9) 71 ITR 260, of ITA No. 164/2008 Page 3 of 13 Karnataka High Court in Brahmaver Chenicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Second ITO [1999] 239 ITR 807 and also on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.I.T. v. Haryana Hotels Ltd. (2005) 276 ITR 521. The ITAT also relied upon the circular issued by CBDT dated 24th June, 1969 in Instruction F.No. 13/8/69-IT(A-III). Based on the decision of the aforesaid judgments and the circular, the ITAT reasoned as under:- “Section 80 of the Act in terms does not refer to section 32(2) which deals with unabsorbed depreciation. Therefore, it…

CIT(A) v. Haryana Hotels Ltd. (276 ITR 521) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax