CIT v. Cochin Refinery Limited

173 ITR 461High Court1988#19512 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Cochin Refinery Limited

National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 18, New Delhi

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

ITA 1148/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Aman Garg, C. AFor Respondent: [CIT] – D. R

Section 43B

…e Assessing Officer while completing the assessment treated Rs.1,96,84,527/- being the cost of HT CO Shift Catalyst as capital expenditure placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Cochin Refinery Limited [(1988) 173 ITR 461]. 6.2 On Appeal the ld. CIT (Appeals) agreeing with the contentions of the Assessing Officer affirmed that the expenditure incurred on HT CO Shift Catalyst as capital in nature. 6.3 The ld. Counsel before us submits that during the year under consideration assessee company incurred an amount of Rs.1,96,48,527/- on purchase of HTCO Shift Catal…

ACIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1041/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Aman Garg, C. AFor Respondent: [CIT] – D. R

Section 43B

The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Thrissur vs. M/S.Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd, Thrissur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed and

ITA 271/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. P.K.JayanFor Respondent: Sri.Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha

Section 143(3)

…s allowed by the assessing officer, is in line with the decision of jurisdictional Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax 19 ITA No.271/Coch/2018 & CO 55/C/2018. M/s.Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd. Vs. Cochin Refineries Limited, (1988) (173 ITR 461) in which the high court had adopted a liberal view and held as follows: "6. The assessee had claimed depreciation and development rebate at the higher rate on certain assets such as waste ponds, fresh water tank, pipe racks, alloy piping, jetty facilities, cherry picker cranes, etc. The assessee claimed depreciation and development rebate on th…

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. Anik Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 993/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.993/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) Deputy Commissioner Of Anik Industries Limited Income Tax Central Circle-7(2) 610, Tulsiani Chambers बनाम/ Room No.655 Mumbai- 400 021 Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Bhupendra Shah, Ld.ARFor Respondent: N. Hemalatha, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…pon the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in DCIT Vs Vippy Solvex Products Limited [2007 8 ITJ 624]. The cited case, in turn, places reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Cochin Refineries Limited [1988 173 ITR 461]. In both the cases, Hon’ble High Courts have allowed the claim of the assessee by observing that additional plant & machinery had no separate existence and could not be utilized for any other purpose and formed integral component of the boiler and therefore, eligible for higher ITA.No.993/Mum/2016 Anik Industries Limited Assessment Year-2008-09…