(CIT v. Anand Theaters

282 ITR 132High Court2006#24337 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing (CIT v. Anand Theaters

SANJAY G VADODARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4419/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Sanjay G. Vadodaria, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 29/B Roop Kamal 426, S.V. 25(3)(4), Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400067 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepv9502A यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Mrs. Zarna P. Chandwani & Mr. Pradeep Chandwani याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Vishwas Mundhe-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

Section 32oSection 42

…, the term depreciation is to be understood in commercial sense then it can be said that it is a normal wear and tear, which required to be replaced at a point of time in future (CIT vs Anand Theaters (2000) 244 ITR 192 (SC), CIT vs Daudayal Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (282 ITR 132)(Guj.)). The position of law is well settled that the depreciation allowance is a normal 9 Sanjay G. Vadodaria wear and tear, out of use of the asset/vehicle (CIT vs Crown Products 304 ITR 106 (Guj.)). The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Velimalai Rubber Company Ltd. Vs ITO (1999) 240 ITR 618, 623 (Mad.) held that, where it is found that the assess…

PREMESHWAR CREATIONS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6852/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Permeshwar Creations Dcit-8(2), Pvt. Ltd. Room No.209, बनाम/ Plot No.52, 7Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Midc Marol, M.K. Road, Andheri(E), Churchgate, Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcp3517F

Section 32

…oses of business carried out by the company, accordingly, in our view, assessee is the owner of the asset, therefore, following the ratio laid down in following cases:- i. CIT vs Poddar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), ii. CIT vs Daudayal Hotels Pvt. Ltd.) (2006) 282 ITR 132 (Guj.). iii. CIT vs Crown Products (2008) 304 ITR 106 (Guj.) iv. CIT vs Gujarati Samaj (2012) 349 ITR 559 (MP). We are of the view that depreciation on the applicable rates, during the relevant time, has to be allowed to the assessee. It is not the case of the Revenue that these motor cars were not used for business purposes of the assessee co…

KEDIA SHARES & STOCK BROKERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 4(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Kedia Shares & Stock Acit, Brokers Limited, Circle-4(3), बनाम/ 418, Commerce House, Room No.649, 6Th Floor, Vs. 140, Nagindas Master Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400023 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaack2528E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 32oSection 42

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ए, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" । Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member Assessment Year-2010-11 Kedia Shares & Stock ACIT, Brokers Limited, Circle-4(3), बनाम/ 418, Commerce House, Room No.649, 6th Floor, Vs. 140, Nagindas Master Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400023 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 PAN No.AAACK2528E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Mr. Rishabh Shah Shri M. Murli -DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenu…