CIT v. Alps Theatre

65 ITR 377Supreme Court of India1967#3716 most cited

What is CIT v. Alps Theatre authority for?

Land is not subject to depreciation. Depreciation can only be claimed on buildings, and the value of the building must be considered separately from the land when computing capital gains.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 1992 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Alps Theatre · depreciation on land · depreciation on building · capital gains · separate asset · Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 143(1)previous yearsection 143transfercompanysection 14businesssection 143(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Alps Theatre

SWEETOO APPARELS,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE5(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 341/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 250

…of appeal: 1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 5 (referred to as CIT (Appeals) erred in disallowing depreciation of Rs.3644750/- on land following the ratio of I.T.A No. 341/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 Sweetoo Apparels vs. ACIT M/s Alps Theatre 65 ITR 377 (SC) without appreciating the terms and conditions of the sale deed dated 28/4/2011 which clearly mentions in Note No 2 on page 17 of the sale deed as under: "By the said Sale Deed the purchaser became owner of the shop only. The purchaser is entitled to use common amenities and common parking of said scheme as per the terms and conditions of the…

SHRI. HIRABAI HARIDAS DATTANI(LATE) BY L.H. SATHISH CHANDRA HARIDAS DATANI,KANNUR vs. THE ITO WARD-1, KANNUR, KANNUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 796/COCH/2022[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daslate Hirabai Haridas Dattani The Income Tax Officer (By L/H Satish Chandra Haridas Datani) Ward – 1, 100, Arman Cantonment Vs. Kannur Kannur [Pan:Aalph1136R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Arun Raj, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 09.6.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Dismissing His Appeal Contesting His Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 28.10.2010 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee In His Capacity As The Legal Representative (Lr) Of His Late Mother, Smt. Hirabai Haridas Dattani. On Enquiry With Shri Raj, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee; The Valakat In His Favour Having Been Signed By The Assessee Alone, It Was Explained That The Assessee Has Been Pursuing The Matter From The Assessment Stage Onwards. His Only Brother, Shri Arun Dattani, Had Since Expired & He May Accordingly Be Taken As Representing The Estate Of His Late Mother For An On Behalf Of The Family, I.E., Including His Four Sisters; His Father Having Already Expired. The Hearing In The Matter Was Proceeded With On That Basis.

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

…duced from the total consideration, and capital gain computed thereon, a separate asset from land, separately. That is, there is even in such a case no question of the value of building being added to that of land, a separate asset(CIT v. Alps Theatres [1967] 65 ITR 377 (SC)). The assessee’s objection is, both on facts and in law, without basis. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court onOctober30, 2023 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax(Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. (Manomohan Das) Accountant Member Cochin, Dated:October30, 2023 n.p. Page 3 ITANo. 796/Coch/ 2022…

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI vs. M/S.KNOWELL REALTORS INDIA P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 193/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Santosh P. Abraham, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 268A

…gain, invoking s.50C. That is, the non-charge of depreciation does not assist the assessee’s case in any manner, being, on the contrary, consistent with the Revenue’s stand of land – which is in any case not subject to depreciation (CIT v. Alps Theatre [1967] 65 ITR 377 (SC)), and building, being held as SIT, realizable on transfer, either by way of sale or lease, i.e., as a part of its business. Other Arguments 4.5 The assessee claiming a past history of acceptance of income arising thus as income from house property, is, again, misplaced. This is as there is nothing on record to suggest, much less show, such an…

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI vs. M/S.KNOWELL REALTORS INDIA P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 192/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Santosh P. Abraham, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 268A

…gain, invoking s.50C. That is, the non-charge of depreciation does not assist the assessee’s case in any manner, being, on the contrary, consistent with the Revenue’s stand of land – which is in any case not subject to depreciation (CIT v. Alps Theatre [1967] 65 ITR 377 (SC)), and building, being held as SIT, realizable on transfer, either by way of sale or lease, i.e., as a part of its business. Other Arguments 4.5 The assessee claiming a past history of acceptance of income arising thus as income from house property, is, again, misplaced. This is as there is nothing on record to suggest, much less show, such an…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1187/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 47Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viiia)

…ng the assessment proceedings, the assessee was called upon to file the bifurcation of the land cost and building cost which was not furnished. The assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alps Theatre [1967] 65 ITR 377 as per which the assessee was entitled to depreciation on building and land appurtenant to it. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had not furnished the area of land which was purchased in 1990 and the area on which building was constructed. He, therefore, estimated the depreciation claimed on the excess land held by the assessee at 50 p…

M/S. SWETHA HEALTH RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2435/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri Chythanya K.K
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50

…d in any of the assessment years. In fact, as we have already found, no rate of depreciation has ever been prescribed for land. That land is not a depreciable asset is no longer res Integra after the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Alps Theatre [1987] 65 ITR 377. If land is not a depreciable asset and cannot form part of the block of assets in the absence of a rate of Page 9 of 10 depreciation having been prescribed therefor, we do not see how the provisions of Section 50 of the Act can be invoked to the present case. The Assessing Officer was clearly acted contrary to law when he invoked Section 50(2) of…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 1940/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 11.06.2019
Section 50CSection 80G

…been claimed on the entire amount capitalized in the books of account, the AO was right in holding that the value of land was "Nil". This is because no depreciation can be claimed on the cost of land as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Alps Theatre 65 ITR 377(SC). The Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in CIT v. Hoogly Mills Co. Ltd 287 ITR 333 has further held that where composite price is mentioned, the price has to be bifurcated between price of land and building and no depreciation can be given on land. As no bifurcation has been given but depreciation has been claimed, the AO has rightly tak…

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 1874/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 11.06.2019
Section 50CSection 80G

…been claimed on the entire amount capitalized in the books of account, the AO was right in holding that the value of land was "Nil". This is because no depreciation can be claimed on the cost of land as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Alps Theatre 65 ITR 377(SC). The Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in CIT v. Hoogly Mills Co. Ltd 287 ITR 333 has further held that where composite price is mentioned, the price has to be bifurcated between price of land and building and no depreciation can be given on land. As no bifurcation has been given but depreciation has been claimed, the AO has rightly tak…

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 1873/CHNY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 11.06.2019
Section 50CSection 80G

…been claimed on the entire amount capitalized in the books of account, the AO was right in holding that the value of land was "Nil". This is because no depreciation can be claimed on the cost of land as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Alps Theatre 65 ITR 377(SC). The Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in CIT v. Hoogly Mills Co. Ltd 287 ITR 333 has further held that where composite price is mentioned, the price has to be bifurcated between price of land and building and no depreciation can be given on land. As no bifurcation has been given but depreciation has been claimed, the AO has rightly tak…

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 1872/CHNY/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 11.06.2019
Section 50CSection 80G

…been claimed on the entire amount capitalized in the books of account, the AO was right in holding that the value of land was "Nil". This is because no depreciation can be claimed on the cost of land as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Alps Theatre 65 ITR 377(SC). The Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in CIT v. Hoogly Mills Co. Ltd 287 ITR 333 has further held that where composite price is mentioned, the price has to be bifurcated between price of land and building and no depreciation can be given on land. As no bifurcation has been given but depreciation has been claimed, the AO has rightly tak…

MESERS EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

ITA 561/ASR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Tarsem Lal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…garded it as so. In fact, the AO, whose action he upholds, does not state so; though yet assesses the gain on land separately. That land is a separate asset from the structure thereon or the plant attached thereto, is well-settled (CIT vs. Alps Theatre [1967] 65 ITR 377 (SC);. CIT vs. Citibank N. A. [2003] 261 ITR 570 (Bom); CIT vs. Vimal Chand Golecha [1993] 201 ITR 442 (Raj)). Further, it may also be that the ld. CIT(A) considers so as land, if regarded as part of the units sold, would be subject to provision of section 50B, in which case no indexation benefit would be available to the assessee and, two, only t…

M/S EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD. ,PATHANKOT vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-6,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

ITA 284/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Tarsem Lal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…garded it as so. In fact, the AO, whose action he upholds, does not state so; though yet assesses the gain on land separately. That land is a separate asset from the structure thereon or the plant attached thereto, is well-settled (CIT vs. Alps Theatre [1967] 65 ITR 377 (SC);. CIT vs. Citibank N. A. [2003] 261 ITR 570 (Bom); CIT vs. Vimal Chand Golecha [1993] 201 ITR 442 (Raj)). Further, it may also be that the ld. CIT(A) considers so as land, if regarded as part of the units sold, would be subject to provision of section 50B, in which case no indexation benefit would be available to the assessee and, two, only t…

M/S. SWEETOO APPARELS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-5(2),, AHMEDBAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2189/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar] Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sweetoo Apparels ......…………......Appellant Om Complex, Cg Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009 [Pan : Aahfs 1640 K] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax ............................Respondent Circle-5 (2), Ahmedabad Appearances By: Cn Shah, For The Applicant Anand Kumar, For The Respondent Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 20.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.05.2019

…that the above amount of purchase also included the value of land where no depreciation is allowable. The AO has SMC- ITA No. 2189/Ahd/2017 Sweetoo Apparels Vs. DCIT Assessment year: 2013-2014 Page 2 of 3 relied upon the decision in the case of Alps Theatre 65 ITR 377 (SC) where the Hon’ble Court has observed that the rate of depreciation is fixed on the nature of structure. The AO has further noticed that the assessee has failed to furnish any bifurcation with regard to the value of land. Accordingly, the AO has disallowed the depreciation of Rs. 36,44,750/- related to the land and added to the total income of…

GRAPHISADS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4770/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ciation on land in assessment years 2009-10 and in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 while passing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, is not in accordance with law in view of the decision of the Hon’ble apex court in CIT vs. Alps Theatre Ltd (1967) 65 ITR 377 and while refusing the prayer of the assessee to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, [1992] 193 ITR 321 as to the rule of consistency and precedence, Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition made on account of the relevance of the depreciation on the land component. 8. The assessee is, therefore, before us in thi…

VIKAS GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2332/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Roli Chaubey, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, JM ITA No. 2332/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Vikas Gupta, Vs ACIT, 4, Friends Colony West, Circle-24(1), New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAPG3152D ITA No. 6550/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Vikas Gupta, Vs ACIT, 4, Friends Colony West, Circle-28(1), New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAPG3152D Assessee by : Ms. Roli Chaubey, CA Revenue by : Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 31.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 12.07.2018 ORDER Per N. K.…

AJANTA NETWORK,BANGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2626/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 32

…e claim of depreciation on land by the appellant and the argument that the cost of land is an integral part of the building and cannot be separated for the purpose of claiming depreciation is not correct. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Alps Theatre 65 ITR 377 has held that cost of land is not entitled to depreciation along with cost of building standing thereon. The ITAT Delhi in case of Capital Cars Pvt Ltd 114 ITD 286 has also decided in similar line. The assessee itself before the AO has submitted the valuation of the godown and guest house buildings. Under such circumstances, the assessee is bound…

KNIGHT RIDERS SPORTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1307/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Knight Riders Sports Acit, Central Circle-29, Private Limited, Deepvan बिधम/ Mumbai. Anand Vihar Society, 20Th Vs. Road, Khar (W), Mumbai-400 052 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aadck3118M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…rtain percentage, the same would in no way alter the character of the payment from capital to revenue. 6. The A.O further deliberating on the allowability of depreciation, observed, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Alps Theatre (1967) 65 ITR 377 (SC) had held that depreciation would be allowable only on such capital asset whose value diminishes. Though, the A.O by relying on the aforesaid judgment was initially of the view that as the value of the IPL franchise did not depreciate, therefore, the same despite being an intangible asset under Sec. 32(1)(ii) would not be eligible for deprecia…

TIGER COMMERCE PVT. LTD.(NOW PRIMARC STORY VENTURE PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2049/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2049/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Primarc Story Venture Pvt Ltd -Vs- Acit, Circle-3, Kolkata (Formerly Tiger Commerce Pvt Ltd) [Pan: Aabct 8460 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…) in the assessment. This action was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds: 1.i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying the judgment in CIT vs Alps Theatre, 65 ITR 377 (SC) since the assessee purchased showroom at 8, Elgin Road on outright basis and the purchased consideration did not show any bifurcation for land cost. ii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) is wrong in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer who disallowed Rs. 8,20,000/- towards depreciation allowance on showroom…

R.RAVISHANKAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2204/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: 08.03.2017

…h technical :- 4 -: expertise even such constructions, the land is considered to be separate item and no depreciation is allowed. The Ld.DR further submitted that Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Alps Theatre [1967] reported in 65 ITR 377 and held that the cost of the land is not entitled to depreciation along with the cost of building standing thereon. Therefore, the Ld. DR argued that the Hon’ble ITAT’s decision in the case of M/s.Asian Handlooms vs. DCIT-II, Trichy cited supra is not correct interpretation of Law and should not be followed. 5.0 We heard the rival submissions…

HATHWAY IN vs. TS PVT LTD,VS.THE DCIT CENT CIR - 34,

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6011/MUM/2003[1998 - 99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2017
For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra-Sr.-DR
Section 115Section 145Section 154Section 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “आई” ” ” ” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“I”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6011/Mum/2003,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 1998-99 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6012/Mum/2003,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 1999-2000 वष" M/s. Hathway Investments Private DCIT-Central Circle-34 Limited,Rahejas, 4th Floor, Plo…

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Alps Theatre (65 ITR 377) — Cited in 32 Judgments | BharatTax