How many judgments cite CIT v. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd.?

39 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd. (262 ITR 587), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 115U, Section 14A, Section 244A, Section 271(1)(c), Section 36(1)(vii).

CIT v. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd.

262 ITR 587High Court2003#3007 most cited

What is CIT v. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

The fiction created by Section 50(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies only to the computation of capital gains under Sections 48 and 49, and not to other provisions. Section 54E is available for exemption irrespective of whether the asset is depreciable or not.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd. · Section 50(1) · Section 50(2) · Section 48 · Section 49 · Section 54E · capital gains computation · depreciable assets · non-depreciable assets

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB Section 115U Section 14A Section 244A Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 50(1)section 80ab section 54e section 70(2)section 10(15)section 80m section 10(33)section 14a(1)section 54ec long-term capital asset section 36(1)(viii)section 111a

Judgments citing CIT v. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Claris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 295/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 295/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 The D.C.I.T, M/S Claris Lifesciences Limited, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. Claris Corporate Hq, Ahmedabad. Near Parimal Rly. Crossing, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacc6366Q

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.D.R

Section 50Section 54ESection 70Section 74

…urt in the case CIT vs. Polestar Industries (Gujarat High Court) [221 taxman 0423 ] held that: 7. We also notice that while doing so it has concurred with the decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. Assam Petroleum Industries (P.) Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 587. We are in agreement with both the decisions of the Gauhati High Court as well as the Bombay High Court in holding that capital gain arising of long-term capital asset, if invested in specified asset, the assessee is not to be charged capital gains and exemption provided under Section 54EC of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee only on accou…

ACIT, Circle 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Eurofinance Traininf & Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 835/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Pitta Samuel

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 48Section 50Section 54E

…High Court have also taken the same view in the following cases: M/s. Eurofinance Training & Publishing P. Ltd. ITA No.835/Mum./2019 CIT v. Polestar Industries [2014] 41 taxmann.com 237/221 Taxman 423 (Guj.) CIT v. Assam Petroleum Industries (P.) Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 587/131 Taxman 699 (Gau.). 4. We are also informed that against the aforesaid judgments no appeal has been filed. 5. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court which has clearly held. such capital gain as LTCG, the AO is directed…

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Transport and Travels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5683/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh YadavFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Thar

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6th floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. PAN : AAACR2380M (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Nimesh Yadav Respondent by : Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Shri Hardik Nirmal Date of Hearing : 21/06/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19/07/2022 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM : The aforesaid appeal has…

Dy CIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Voltas Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 94/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 8(3)(1) V. M/S. Voltas Limited Room No. 615 Voltas House, A Block Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Rod Mumbai - 400020 Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033 Pan: Aaacv2809D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department By : Shri Milind Chavan

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 112Section 2Section 50Section 50C

…at High Court as well as Guahati High Court have also taken the same view in the following cases: 1. Commissioner of Income tax V. vs. Polestar Industries [2013 SCC online Gu 5517] 2. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P.) Ltd. [(2003) 262 ITR 587]. We are also informed that against the aforesaid judgments no appeal has been filed. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. 38. We may gainfully refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Manali Investment (ITA no. 1658 of 2012) in which Hon'ble S…

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Voltas Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 7029/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Section 14A

…as Guahati High Court have also taken the same view in the following cases: 1. Commissioner of Income tax V. vs. Polestar Industries [2013 SCC online Gu 5517] 2. Commissioner of Income 13 Voltas Limited – Tax vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P.) Ltd. [(2003) 262 ITR 587]. We are also informed that against the aforesaid judgments no appeal has been filed. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. 38. We may gainfully refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Manali Investment (ITA no. 1658 of 2012) in which Hon'ble…

Sunil Miglani, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5829/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblesunil Miglani Vs Dcit Kj-2, Kavi Nagar Central Circle New Delhi Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)(a)Section 54F(1)(b)

…HC) 5 xii. ITO vs. Manjit Singh [2010] 128 TTJ 82 (Chandigarh) (UO) xiii. CIT, Panji vs. V. S. Dempo Company Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 354 (SC) xiv. CIT vs. ACE Builders (P.) Ltd. (2005) 281 ITR 210 (Bom. HC) xv. CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P.) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 587 (Gau. HC) Besides this, the Ld. AR also submitted that in case of assessee’s wife, the issue has been decided in favour of the wife by the Tribunal in ITA No. 2235/Del/2016 order dated 18.11.2019 (Anit Miglani vs. ITO). Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that t…

Anita Miglani, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5828/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Vanshika Taneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)(a)Section 54F(1)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.5828DEL/2016 Assessment Year 2009-10 Anita Miglani, v. DCIT, Central Circle, KJ-2, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. TAN/PAN: AAVPM0623N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms. Vanshika Taneja, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 10 02 2020 Date of pronouncement: 17 02 2020 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the impugned order dated 20.10.2016, passed by Ld. Commission…

Smt. Anita Miglani, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2235/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)(a)

…hi HC) xii. ITO vs. Manjit Singh [2010] 128 TTJ 82 (Chandigarh) (UO) xiii. CIT, Panji vs. V. S. Dempo Company Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 354 (SC) xiv. CIT vs. ACE Builders (P.) Ltd. (2005) 281 ITR 210 (Bom. HC) xv. CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P.) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 587 (Gau. HC) 6 I.T.A No. 2235/Del/2016 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that the case laws relied by the Assessing Officer is not applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case as judgment states that Section 50C will be applicable to determine sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gain and not for purpose of exemption. The j…

Kalva Umadevi, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhpatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.443/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Smt.Kalva Uma Devi Income Tax Officer 15-2-17, Srinilayam Ward-1(4) Maharanipeta Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aewpk3080J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

For Appellant: Shri C.V.S.Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR

Section 1Section 148Section 50CSection 54Section 54F

…ic asset and for the purpose of s. 48. Hence the assessee is entitled for deduction under s. 54F. — CIT vs. Ace Builders (P) Ltd. (2005) 195 CTR (Born) 1. (2006) 281 ITR 210 (Born) and CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P) Ltd. (2003) 185 CTR (Gau) 71 (2003) 262 ITR 587 (Gau) applied. The assessee also relied on the decision of ITAT Jaipur Bench in I.T.A.No.11/JP/2016 dated 28.09.2017 in the case of ITO, Ward-2(1), Ajmer Vs. Raj Kumar Parashar, Ajmer, wherein, the coordinate Bench has taken a similar view on identical facts. We extract relevant part of the order of the coordinate bench of Jaipur as under. “8.…

Smt. Nilanjana Chakraborti, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 22, Kolkata

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

ITA 2440/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Nilanjana Chakraborti…………..………...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….....Appellant 99B, Kankulia Road Kolkata – 700 029 [Pan : Acupc 49992 P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-22, Kolkata.……......………………..........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 03/08/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14, On The Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Erroneous Determination Of Long Term Capital Gain At Rs.72,50,000/- By Ld. Dcit On Erroneous Belief & Misconception Of Law By Denying The Benefit Claimed U/S 54F Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Appellant. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Adduce Or Alter Any Ground Or Grounds On Or Before The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 50CSection 54Section 54ESection 54F

…ic asset and for the purpose of s. 48. Hence the assessee is entitled for deduction under s. 54F.— CIT v. Ace Builders (P.) Ltd. (2005) 195 CTR (Bom) 1 . (2006) 281 ITR 210 (Bom) and CIT v. Assam Petroleum Industries (P.) Ltd. (2003) 185 CTR (Gau) 71 : (2003) 262 ITR 587 (Gau)applied. (Paras 7.3 to 7.5)" 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also applying the ratio of the case laws discussed above, we are of the view that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, if the net sale consideration is invested in construction or purchase of new residential house. In the present ca…

Dcitcc 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Hrishikesh D. Pai, Mumbai

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2766/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 50Section 54FSection 69B

…ble asset has to be treated as Long term capital asset, it is entitled to the benefit of section 54F of the Act. In the above case, Delhi High Court had relied on the case of CIT vs. ACE Builders [281 ITR 210 (Bom), CIT vs Assam Petroleum Industries (P) Ltd. [262 ITR 587] Ld. CIT vs. Delite Tin Industries , I.T. Act, 1961 No. 1118/2008. If we apply the above case laws to our case here also appellant sold commercial property which is held for more than 3 years and from the consideration received from sale of the property he purchased new property. Hence appellant is eligible for exemption u/s 54F of the Act. AO's…

Amar Kanayalal Nagpal, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1744/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Amar Kanayalal Nagpal, B-206, Ito, Ward-19 (2)(3), Mumbai. 2Nd Floor, Pioneer Residency-Ii, बिधम/ Daulat Nagar,Mumbai-400 054. Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…on under the relevant section, where so ever exemption was available against LTCG. The Ld. A.R. in support of his aforesaid contention took support of the judgment of the High Court of Guwahati in the case of CIT Vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 587 (Gau). It was averred by the Ld. A.R. that the assessee was duly entitled for deduction under Sec. 54EC of the Act, and the A.O while framing the assessment under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 had erroneously declined the same. It was further submitted by Ld. A.R that the A.O while framing the consequential assessment under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 had tr…

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1)Kol., Kolkata

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

ITA 117/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

Section 14Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B

…t. 3. We are informed that the Gujrat High Court as well as Guahati High Court have also taken the same view in the following cases: i) CIT vs. Polestar Industries [2014] 41 taxmann.com 237/221 Taxman 423 ii) CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P) Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 587/131 Taxman 699 (Gau) ITA No.117/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 EIH Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kol. Page 28 4. We are also informed that against the aforesaid judgments no appeal has been filed. 5. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.” 5.2. We find that the reliance placed by the ld AR on…

Parvinchand N. Sehgal (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2305/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 50Section 54Section 54F

…Industrial Premises Co-op. Society Ltd., Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. ACE Builders P. Ltd. 281 ITR 210 and decision of Guwahati High Court in the case of Assam Petroleum Industries P. Ltd. 262 ITR 587. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2010 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.18,85,178/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the Act was i…

DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eih Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 153/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…t. 3. We are informed that the Gujrat High Court as well as Guahati High Court have also taken the same view in the following cases: i) CIT vs. Polestar Industries [2014] 41 taxmann.com 237/221 Taxman 423 ii) CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P) Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 587/131 Taxman 699 (Gau) 4. We are also informed that against the aforesaid judgments no appeal has been filed. 5. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.” 5.2. We find that the reliance placed by the ld AR on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Manali Inv…

Eih Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 110/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…t. 3. We are informed that the Gujrat High Court as well as Guahati High Court have also taken the same view in the following cases: i) CIT vs. Polestar Industries [2014] 41 taxmann.com 237/221 Taxman 423 ii) CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P) Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 587/131 Taxman 699 (Gau) 4. We are also informed that against the aforesaid judgments no appeal has been filed. 5. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.” 5.2. We find that the reliance placed by the ld AR on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Manali Inv…

Skf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 4(3)4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7092/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7092/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2002-03 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.3558/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7093/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.6989/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Milin Thakore

Section 112(1)(b)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50Section 50C

…the above flat have been treated as Long Term Capital Gains and accordingly offered for tax at 20% as per Sec. 112(1)(b). The company relies on the decision of the 3 SKF India Ltd. Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT Vs Assam Petroleum Industries (P) Ltd (262 ITR 587) which has observed that Sec. 50 only provides that if the depreciation has been allowed under the Act of the capital asset, then the assessee’s computation of capital gain would not be u/s. 48 and 49 of the I.T. Act and it would be with modification as provided u/s. 50 and that section 50 does not state that depreciation asset shall be treated a…

Skf Inida Ltd( Since May 19 2004 Name Has Been Changed From Skf Bearing India Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3558/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Milin Thakore

Section 112(1)(b)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50Section 50C

CIT vs. Rajiv Shukla

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 620 / 2011HC Delhi08 Apr 2011

Section 50Section 54F

…4. We have gone through the judgment of Bombay High Court in the aforesaid two cases. Learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that even Gauhati High Court has taken identical view in CIT v. Assam Petroleum Industries (P.) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 587. . 5. We do not find any reason to take a different view. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. . 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. . . A.K. SIKRI, J. . M.L. MEHTA, J. APRIL 08, 2011 AK . . . 03 #…