CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.

257 ITR 88High Court2002#3463 most cited

What is CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. authority for?

Depreciation on a vehicle cannot be denied solely because the transfer was not recorded under the Motor Vehicles Act or the vehicle stood in the vendor's name in official records, if the assessee can establish ownership.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. · section 32 · depreciation · vehicle ownership · Motor Vehicles Act · vendor name · beneficial owner

Also reported as

123 Taxmann 693

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37Section 143(1)Section 145(1)Section 145(3)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

beneficial ownersection 32salarysection 143(2)personcompanybusinessindiasection 143section 143(3)interestnfac

Judgments citing CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.

M/S. Edelweiss Broking Ltd. ( Amalgamating Company Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The Jt. CIT, Range-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 318/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

…of the 11 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 partners then the firm would be entitled to depreciation on vehicle. The hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. [2002] 257 ITR 88 (Delhi) held that where vehicle was owned and used by the assessee but no registration was done in its name then the assessee would still be entitled to depreciation on such vehicle. Therefore, the assessee has right to claim depreciation thereon. This ground of the Revenue is accordingly rejected.” 21. Regarding the 2nd question as discussed abo…

Goldmohur Design and Apparel Park Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai

ITA 3971/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldmohar Design & Pr. Cit-7 R. No. 628, 6Th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 Pan – Aadcg1613M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. T. Kipgen &
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Goldmohar Desine and Apparel Park Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-7 1 ITA No.3971/Mum/2017 A.Y 2012-13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member Goldmohar Design and Pr. CIT-7 R. No. 628, 6th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 PAN – AADCG1613M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Vipul Joshi, Ms. Dinkle Hariya & Shri Divyesh Fataria, A.Rs Respondent by: Shri. T. Kipgen & Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, D.Rs Date of He…

S F Dyes Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5456/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shiv Prakash, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar
Section 143(2)

…2011 and ITA No,4121/Mum/2014. In the said decision the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal have placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Aravali Finlease Lid. 9341 ITR 282 (Guj.) and CIT Vs. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. 257 ITR 88 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, allowed the depreciation of the car which was registered in the name of the Director in the said case. It is further mentioned that AO has not brought any fact on record that the car was used for other than business purposes. The facts in! the present case are similar to the case decided by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the…

Third Eye Estate (I) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir. 15(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6434/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Third Eye Estate (I) Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle -15(3)(2) B-3301-3302, Oberoi Springs, 4Th Floor, 451 Aayakar Bhavan, Off Link Road, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 45

…ur aforesaid view is fortified by the following judicial pronouncements: Sr. No. Particulars 1. P a g e | 8 ITA No.6434/Mum/2014 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Third Eye Estate (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle-15(3)(2) 341 ITR 282 (Guj) 2. CIT Vs. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. 257 ITR 88 (Del) 3. Edwise Consultants P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 44 ITR (Trib)236 (Mum) 4. Pan Oleo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 60 ITR (Trib.) 230 (Mum) We are also unable to persuade ourselves to accept the view taken by the lower authorities, that as Shri Uday Singh, director of the assessee company in whose name the aforesaid motor car was registered also happe…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Arcoy Inustries(India) Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1770/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Talwani, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri P.M. Mehta and G. M. Thakor, A.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14A

…lue of the vehicle was shown as part of the fixed assets. More so, the same was utilized by the company which is why depreciation was claimed. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-vs-Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (257 ITR 88) and DCIT vs. M/s. Axel Ploymers Ltd. (ITA No.3488/Ahd/2010). He ultimately relied upon the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) on the finding that the DCIT vs. Arcoy Industries (Ind) Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year – 2012-13 said vehicle was used for the business purpose and the same was duly reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee company. 11. We…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Abhay Cotex Pvt. Ltd., Jalna

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1423/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1423/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kaul & Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 115JSection 32

…91 (Cal.), CIT v. Nidish Transport Corpn. [1910] 185 ITR 669/[1989] 44 Taxman 351(Ker.), CIT v. Dilip Singh Bagga [1993] 201ITR 995/[1994] 77 Taxman 66(Bom.), CIT v. Navdurga Transport Co. [1999] 235 ITR 158 (All.) and CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. [2002] 257 ITR 88/123 Taxman 693 (Delhi)as also by the ITAT in their decision in the case of The Curious House (P) Ltd. v ITO (1980) 9 TTJ 348(Indore) and ITO Vs. Modi Agency, ITA no. 198/Gau/1977-78(Gauhati). 5.2 In the light of view taken in the aforesaid decisions, mere non- registration of a vehicle in the name of the company under the Motor Vehicles Act, cann…

PAN Oleo Enterprise P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 569/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 569/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Pan Oleo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner 202, Quantum Towers Of Income-Tax 10(3)(2) बिधम/ Rambaug Lane, S. V. Road C-10, Pratyakshakar Vs. Malad (West), Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla Mumbai-400 064 Complex Mumbai- 400 051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecp9927E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…for the purpose of its business but it was registered in the name of one of the partners, then the firm would be entitled to depreciation on vehicle. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (2002) 176 CTR (Del) 294 : (2002) 257 ITR 88 (Del) held that where vehicle was owned and used by the assessee but no registration was done in its name, still then assessee would be entitled for depreciation on such vehicle. Therefore, assessee has right to claim depreciation thereon. This ground of Revenue is accordingly rejected." The ld. A.R in order to drive home his aforesaid contention…

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

…Identical ratio was laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Dilip Singh S. Bagga (1993) 201 ITR 995 (Bom.), CIT vs Mirza Ataulla Baig 202 ITR 291 (Bom.), CIT vs Nabdurga Transport Company 235 ITR 158, 160 (All.), Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. (2002) 257 ITR 88, 89,91 (Del.), Hotels Skylark & Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. 221 ITR 283 (Punjab), CIT vs A.P. Paper Mills 225 ITR 262 (A.P.), CIT vs Orient Longman Pvt. Ltd. 227 ITR 68 (A.P.), CIT vs Himachal Pradesh Mineral and Industrial Development Corporation 234 ITR 509 (HP), Mysore Minerals Ltd. 239 ITR 775 (SC), relying on CIT vs Poddar Cements Pvt. Ltd. 226 ITR…

Mehta Equities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 570/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)

…sessee:- 1. Mysore Minerals (1999) 106 Taxman 166 (SC) 2. Navdurga Transport Co 149 CTR 219 3. Dilip SinghSardarsingh Bagga 201 ITR 995 4. Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd 25 Taxmann.com 458 (Ahd) 5. Aravali Finlease Ltd 341 ITR 383 (Guj) 6. Basti Sugar Mills Co Ltd 257 ITR 88 (Del) 13. In view of the above said legal position and facts of the case, Ld Counsel requested for allowing the claim of depreciation. 14. It was also submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the car was purchased in earlier year and this is the second year. Since the car has already entered into 7 I.T.A. No.570/Mum/2015 the block of assets in A.Y. 2009…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 767/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Jarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ed upon various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court which are as under: i) K.L. Johar & Co. Vs DCIT (1965) 16 STC 213 (S.C.); ii) P Mohammed Meerakhan Vs CIT (1969) 73 ITR 735 (S.C.); iii) CIT Vs Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. 257 ITR 88 (Del.); iv) CITVs U P Stat Industrial Corpn. (1997) 225 ITR 703 (S.C.); v) Challapalli Sugars Ltd. Vs CIT (1975) 98 ITR 167 (S.C.); vi) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. 82 ITR 363 (S.C.) 7.11 Ld. A.R. submitted that the decision relied upon by the Ld. D.R. in case of Motor & General Sales (P) Ltd. vs CIT (supra) is distinguishable as the case deals w…

Ge Capital Services India, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 514/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Jarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ed upon various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court which are as under: i) K.L. Johar & Co. Vs DCIT (1965) 16 STC 213 (S.C.); ii) P Mohammed Meerakhan Vs CIT (1969) 73 ITR 735 (S.C.); iii) CIT Vs Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. 257 ITR 88 (Del.); iv) CITVs U P Stat Industrial Corpn. (1997) 225 ITR 703 (S.C.); v) Challapalli Sugars Ltd. Vs CIT (1975) 98 ITR 167 (S.C.); vi) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. 82 ITR 363 (S.C.) 7.11 Ld. A.R. submitted that the decision relied upon by the Ld. D.R. in case of Motor & General Sales (P) Ltd. vs CIT (supra) is distinguishable as the case deals w…

Edwise Consultants P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4121/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 40A(2)(a)

…TR 625) (b) ITO Vs. Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd (2012)(13 ITR (Tri) 594 20 I T A N o . 5 3 7 6 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 1 , 5 9 4 / M/ 2 0 1 3 a n d 4 1 2 1 / M/ 2 0 1 4 (c) CIT Vs. Aravali Finlease Ltd (2012)9341 ITR 282)(Guj) (d) CIT Vs. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd (2002)(257 ITR 88)(Delhi) 24. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal has confirmed identical disallowance made in the assessee’s own case in AY 2007-08. 25. We have heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has considered identical issue in the case of Aravali finleas…

Edwise Consultants P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 594/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 40A(2)(a)

…TR 625) (b) ITO Vs. Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd (2012)(13 ITR (Tri) 594 20 I T A N o . 5 3 7 6 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 1 , 5 9 4 / M/ 2 0 1 3 a n d 4 1 2 1 / M/ 2 0 1 4 (c) CIT Vs. Aravali Finlease Ltd (2012)9341 ITR 282)(Guj) (d) CIT Vs. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd (2002)(257 ITR 88)(Delhi) 24. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal has confirmed identical disallowance made in the assessee’s own case in AY 2007-08. 25. We have heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has considered identical issue in the case of Aravali finleas…

Edwise Consultants P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5376/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 40A(2)(a)

…TR 625) (b) ITO Vs. Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd (2012)(13 ITR (Tri) 594 20 I T A N o . 5 3 7 6 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 1 , 5 9 4 / M/ 2 0 1 3 a n d 4 1 2 1 / M/ 2 0 1 4 (c) CIT Vs. Aravali Finlease Ltd (2012)9341 ITR 282)(Guj) (d) CIT Vs. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd (2002)(257 ITR 88)(Delhi) 24. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal has confirmed identical disallowance made in the assessee’s own case in AY 2007-08. 25. We have heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has considered identical issue in the case of Aravali finleas…