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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Alps Theatre?

32 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Alps Theatre (65 ITR 377), spanning 1992 to 2024.

CIT v. Alps Theatre (65 ITR 377)

I.T.O WD - 7(3), Kolkata. vs. M/S Shree Banke Behari Enterprises Private Limited., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 350/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 145

…ta has erred in deleting the addition under the head “Depreciation on an ownership flat” for Rs.1,14,648/- and “Depreciation on an ownership shop” for Rs.1,51,255/- in not considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT – vs – AIPS Theatre (1967) 65 ITR 377 (SC) in its proper perspective. 3. The appellant craves leave to ad, alter or abrogate any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” Shri S.M. Gupta, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri Uday Kumar Sardar, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf Revenue. 2. First issue raised by the Revenue is that ld…

Md. Farooque Ansari, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 32(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1769/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kumar Sardar, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50Section 50C

…hold interest in the land and (ii) Building constructed on such leasehold land. According to provisions of Section 32 of the Act, no depreciation is allowable on land. The reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alps Theatre 65 ITR 377 (SC). That apart, no depreciation was allowable on leasehold interest in land as per Sec. 32 of the Act, it was noticed that the accountant of the assessee had charged depreciation erroneously on both land and building in the accounts of F.Y. ended on 31/3/2007, although no depreciation is allowable on land. It was further submitted by the assesse…

Asian Advertising, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee firm in ITA N0

ITA 2349/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2349/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Asian Advertising, Ito – 12(3)(4), बनाम/ 4, Parekh Vora Chambers, Mumbai. V. 66, Nagindas Master Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafa1477D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)

Section 31Section 32Section 37

…s the condition laid down in section 32 of the Act and entitled for depreciation @ 15% under the category Plant & Machinery . In support, the assessee firm relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alps Theatre reported in (1967) 65 ITR 377(SC) wherein it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the term ‘building’ means structure and does not include site as there is no question of destruction of the site . The assessee also relied upon the decision in the case of Lindley LJ in Yarmouth v. France (1887) 19 QBD 647,658 for definition of ‘plant’ and submitted that there is no defini…

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Firoz Tin Factory, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6756/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Sanjay Garg, (Jm) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एर्ुं श्री संजम गगग, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6224/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Firoz Tin Factory, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6756/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनाम/ M/S Firoz Tin Factory, Asstt. Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Income Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan :Aaaff6356L अऩीरधथी ओय से / Assessee By Shri Girish Dave प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By Shri G M Doss सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2015 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran:

Section 143(1)Section 50

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “एफ” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“ F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SANJAY GARG, (JM) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एर्ुं श्री संजम गगग, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6224/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/s Firoz Tin Factory, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner of Income Ground floor, Rock Cliff, Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6756/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-1…

Firoz Tin Factory, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6224/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Sanjay Garg, (Jm) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एर्ुं श्री संजम गगग, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6224/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Firoz Tin Factory, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6756/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनाम/ M/S Firoz Tin Factory, Asstt. Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Income Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan :Aaaff6356L अऩीरधथी ओय से / Assessee By Shri Girish Dave प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By Shri G M Doss सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2015 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran:

Section 143(1)Section 50

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “एफ” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“ F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SANJAY GARG, (JM) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एर्ुं श्री संजम गगग, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6224/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/s Firoz Tin Factory, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner of Income Ground floor, Rock Cliff, Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6756/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-1…

ITO 20(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Legal Heirs of Shri Durgaprasad Agnihotri, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 698/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sunil T. Vankawala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar

Section 50Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VP AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM ITA No.698/Mum./2014 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Income Tax Officer, Ward–20(2)(1) 701, Piramal Chambers …….………. Appellant 7th Floor, Lalbaug, Mumbai 400 012 v/s Legal Heir of Shri Durgaprasad Agnihotri A–8, Manik Moti, Yari Road ..…….………. Respondent Versova, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 061 PAN – AACPA1267H Revenue by : Shri Love Kumar Assessee by : Shri Sunil T. Vankawala a/w Shri Subhash Chhaied Date of Hearing – 09.07.2015 Date of Order – 14.10.2015 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A.M.: The present appeal…

Dayal Tahilram Parwani, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3545/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3194/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit-19(3), Dayal Tahilram Parwani बनाम/ Room No. 305, 3Rd Floor, 4Th Floor, Brijbala Building, 21St Road, Bandra (W), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpp 6013 C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3545/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Dayal Tahilram Parwani Dy. Cit-19(3), Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai-400 012 Vs. ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Jasbir S. Chauhanlove Kumar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 18.09.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are The Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & Revenue, Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 26-2-2013, 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 (Ay) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 26-12-2011. 2

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir S. ChauhanLove Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 50Section 50CSection 54E

…ing acquired by the transferee, these would constitute transfers of two separate capital assets under the Act. The law in the matter is well settled, and toward which we may cite the decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Alps Theatre [1967] 65 ITR 377 (SC), the Tribunal decision in which case stands relied upon by the AO; and CIT v. Citi Bank N.A. [2003] 261 ITR 570 (Bom), besides that decided by the Tribunal, as for example in Our Lady of Band Engg. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT (in ITA No. 3109/Mum/2012 dated 29.06.2015). As a corollary, the sale consideration accruing on the assignment/transfer wo…

DCIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Dayal Tahilram Parwanian Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3194/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3194/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit-19(3), Dayal Tahilram Parwani बनाम/ Room No. 305, 3Rd Floor, 4Th Floor, Brijbala Building, 21St Road, Bandra (W), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpp 6013 C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3545/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Dayal Tahilram Parwani Dy. Cit-19(3), Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai-400 012 Vs. ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Jasbir S. Chauhanlove Kumar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 18.09.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are The Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & Revenue, Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 26-2-2013, 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 (Ay) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 26-12-2011. 2

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir S. ChauhanLove Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 50Section 50CSection 54E

…ing acquired by the transferee, these would constitute transfers of two separate capital assets under the Act. The law in the matter is well settled, and toward which we may cite the decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Alps Theatre [1967] 65 ITR 377 (SC), the Tribunal decision in which case stands relied upon by the AO; and CIT v. Citi Bank N.A. [2003] 261 ITR 570 (Bom), besides that decided by the Tribunal, as for example in Our Lady of Band Engg. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT (in ITA No. 3109/Mum/2012 dated 29.06.2015). As a corollary, the sale consideration accruing on the assignment/transfer wo…

CIT vs. Morgan Finvest Pvt Ltd

In the result we answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative,

ITA - 1855 / 2010HC Delhi06 Dec 2012

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32

…le claiming depreciation, the cost of the land was also included, contrary to the provisions of the Act under which no depreciation is allowable on land. This position is well settled after the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alps Theatre, (1967) 65 ITR 377 (SC). This also shows that the claim was far from bona fide. The amount of depreciation claim 2012:DHC:7264-DB ITA No. 1855/2010 Page 9 of 10 is `39,52,300/- which is substantial. The complete lack of any evidence to show that the property was used for the purpose of the assessee‟s business and the attempts made by the…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Morgan Finvest Pvt Ltd

In the result we answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative,

ITA/1855/2010HC Delhi06 Dec 2012

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32

…le claiming depreciation, the cost of the land was also included, contrary to the provisions of the Act under which no depreciation is allowable on land. This position is well settled after the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alps Theatre, (1967) 65 ITR 377 (SC). This also shows that the claim was far from bona fide. The amount of depreciation claim 2012:DHC:7264-DB ITA No. 1855/2010 Page 9 of 10 is `39,52,300/- which is substantial. The complete lack of any evidence to show that the property was used for the purpose of the assessee‟s business and the attempts made by the…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/S. I. K. International Pvt. Ltd

ITA/791/2011HC Delhi29 Mar 2012

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 50(2)Section 54E

…e 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, Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh 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 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 2012:DHC:2200-DB ITA No.791/2011…

Commissioner of Income-Tax(Central) vs. M/S. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg.(Wvg.)Co.Ltd

The appeal is partly allowed

C.A. No.-002916-002916 - 1980Supreme Court29 Apr 1992

For Respondent: GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LTD

Section 256(1)Section 256(2)Section 32

…n is for the continuation of the use of the assets wholly or in part during the accounting year and its contribution to the earning of the income. The object is to determine net income liable to tax. [1027 G] C.I.T. v. Alps Theatre, [1967] 65 ITR 377, explained. 9. Dictionary meaning of the ‘building’ cannot be confined to a structure or superstructure having walls and roof over it. The roads and roadways are adjuncts of the buildings lying within the factory area linking them together and are being used for carrying on its business by the assessee. Therefore, they m…

CIT v. Alps Theatre