CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. Samarth Lifeters Pvt .Ltd, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon. & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon.Dcit, Circle-3, Thane, Vs. M/S. Samarth Lifters Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 2, 6Th Floor, B-Wing, Nayan Building, Next B-Wing, Wagle Industrial To Sri Maa Balniketan School, Estate, Road No.16Z, Eastern Express Highway, Thane (W) Kopri, Than (E).

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON. JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, Circle-3, Thane, Vs. M/s. Samarth Lifters Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 2, 6th Floor, B-Wing, Nayan Building, Next B-Wing, Wagle Industrial to Sri Maa Balniketan School, Estate, Road No.16Z, Eastern Express Highway, Thane (W) Kopri, Than (E). PAN No. AACCS 6646 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CA. Department By : Shri V. Vinod Kumar – Sr. DR Date of hearing : 02/12/2019. Date of pronouncement : 03/12/2019. O R D E R PER RAJES…

J.P. Morgan India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 4(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2745/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2004-05) In The Matter Of: J. P. Morgan India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Range -4(3)(1), J. P. Morgan Towers, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. बिधम/ Off- Cst Road, Kalina Road, Vs. Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400098. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2452/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit Range -4(3)(1), J. P. Morgan India Pvt. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai-400020. J. P. Morgan Towers, Off- Cst Road, Kalina Vs. Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400098. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1022G आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2746/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2005-06) J. P. Morgan India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Range -4(3)(1), J. P. Morgan Towers, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. बिधम/ Off- Cst Road, Kalina Road, Vs. Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400098. & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2453/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Dcit Range -4(3)(1), J. P. Morgan India Pvt. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai-400020. J. P. Morgan Towers, Off- Cst Road, Kalina Vs. Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400098. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1022G अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri V. Jenardhanan & Subhas Kulkarni, Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 05/04/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 26.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement

…ssee but it was also being used for its business purposes; and the full price was also paid by the assessee itself. At the time of hearing, reliance was placed on the Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dilip Singh Saradarsingh Bagga. 201 ITR 995 in support of claim of depreciation 7.2 The Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue has defended the action of Assessing Officer for the reason that the ownership of Motor vehicle could not be established in the absence of its registration in the name of assessee company. 7.3 We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Quite clearly, the facts e…

M/S. Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range- 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2012-13

…ed in the name of the director, payment for the same was made by the assessee and the car was used for the purpose of business.The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dilip Singh Sardar singh Bagga [1993] 201 ITR 995 (Bombay), decision of coordinate bench in the case of Kisan Ratilal Choksey Shares & Securities P. Ltd. vs. ACIT [2015] 41 ITR(1) 114 (Mumbai- Trib) and various other decisions. On appeal to CIT(A), CIT(A) agreed with the contention of the assessee that the depreciation cannot be disallowed merely on the ground that the asset is in the name o…

ACIT 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Estrella Batteries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…l the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance since the assessee company purchased the motor car and used for the purpose of business. The Ld.CIT(A) also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga [201 ITR 995], wherein it has been held that depreciation cannot be denied on the ground that the transfer was not recorded under the Motor Vehicle Act or that the Vehicle stood in the name of the Vendor in the records of the Authorities under the Motor Vehicle Act. 13. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any…

ACIT 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Estrella Batteries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…l the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance since the assessee company purchased the motor car and used for the purpose of business. The Ld.CIT(A) also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga [201 ITR 995], wherein it has been held that depreciation cannot be denied on the ground that the transfer was not recorded under the Motor Vehicle Act or that the Vehicle stood in the name of the Vendor in the records of the Authorities under the Motor Vehicle Act. 13. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any…

ACIT 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Estrella Batteries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…l the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance since the assessee company purchased the motor car and used for the purpose of business. The Ld.CIT(A) also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga [201 ITR 995], wherein it has been held that depreciation cannot be denied on the ground that the transfer was not recorded under the Motor Vehicle Act or that the Vehicle stood in the name of the Vendor in the records of the Authorities under the Motor Vehicle Act. 13. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any…

ACIT 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Estrella Batteries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…l the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance since the assessee company purchased the motor car and used for the purpose of business. The Ld.CIT(A) also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga [201 ITR 995], wherein it has been held that depreciation cannot be denied on the ground that the transfer was not recorded under the Motor Vehicle Act or that the Vehicle stood in the name of the Vendor in the records of the Authorities under the Motor Vehicle Act. 13. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any…

ITO 6(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Banglore Shirt Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 6(1)(3) V. M/S. Banglore Shirt Company Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 508, 5Th Floor, 115, Cama Industrial Estate, Sun Mill Compound, Lower Parel (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaacb 2193 G

…ied depreciation and interest on car loan. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Apex court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [239 ITR 775] and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga [201 ITR 995] allowed the claims of the assessee. 7. Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the counsel for the assessee strongly placed reliance on the orders of the Ld.CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. In this case the depreciation was denied as the vehicle 4 M/s. Bangl…

Samarth Lifters P.Ltd, Thane vs. Addl CIT RG 3, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.1781/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Samarth Lifters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-3, Thane 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Opp. Anand Nagar, Octroi Naka, Road No.16Z, Nayan Building, Wagale Ind. Estate, Next To Maa Niketan Thane (W) School, Pin - 400604 Easter Express Highway Kopri, Thane (W), Pin – 400 603 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs6646K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओय से /Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratna Parakhi याजस्व की ओय से /Revenue By : Shri V. Justin सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2017 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- 2 Mumbai, Dated 16.01.2015, For The Assessment Year 2011-12, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T. Act. 2. The Only Grievance Of Assessee Relates To Disallowance Of Depreciation On Crawler Cranes & Dozers @ 30%. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused.

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठठ ‘ई’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.1781/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Samarth Lifters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, Range-3, Thane 6th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Opp. Anand Nagar, Octroi Naka, Road No.16Z, Nayan Building, Wagale Ind. Estate, Next to Maa Niketan Thane (W) School, Pin - 400604 Easter Express Highway Kopri, Thane (W), Pin – 400 603 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AACCS6646K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओय…

ITO (E) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Cancer Aid & Research Foundation, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer Cancer Aid & Research (Exemption)-1(2), Foundation, बनाम/ Room No.501, 5Th Floor, 10Th Floor, Bridge View, Vs. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, 16 Hansraj Lane, Byculla, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400027 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaatc3013B

…BMW car was purchased keeping in view the size and scale of the assessee trust activities. …… ……” And also in support in reply to remand report of AO, the assessee trust also relied upon the decision in the case of CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga (1993) 201 ITR 995 (Bom) and Addl. CIT vs. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd.(1981) 127 ITR 97(All). 7. The CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee trust allowed the appeal of the assessee trust vide orders dated 31.03.2013 by holding there is no contravention of Section13 9 Cancer Aid & Research Foundation of the Act and the assessee trus…

Sanjay G Vadodaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(4), Mumbai

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

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

…rchased by the assessee, use for business purposes, but not registered in the name of the assessee, the assessee was held to be entitled for depreciation. 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…

Mata Securities India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year 2010-11

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year 2010-11 Mata Securities India Pvt. ACIT, Circle 4(3), Ltd., 2nd Floor, Rahimtoola Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. House, 7 Homji Street, Maharshi Karve Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 001 PAN/GIR No. : AAACM 4228 M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by: Ms D. Hariya, AR Respondent by: Shri S.K.Poddar, DR Date of Hearing: 17.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 28.12.2016 O R D E R PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant…

Premeshwar Creations P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

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

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

…y because, the registration was done in the name of the directors, the depreciation u/s 32 cannot be disallowed. Registration is not the sole criteria for denying the depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Dilip Singh Sardar Singh Bagga 201 ITR 995 (Bom.) 8 M/s Permeshwar Creations Pvt. Ltd. supports our view. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the directors also claimed depreciation resulting into double depreciation. The depreciation was claimed by the assessee company only. Considering the foregoing discussion, we direct the ld. Assessing Officer to grant depreciation on such…

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

…the name of the assessee, but if the assessee is de-facto owner of the asset, then the claim of depreciation shall be allowed to the assessee:- 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 ea…

Jhp Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaljhp Securities Ltd., Dev Neo Vikram, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income “B”Wing, 2Nd Floor, Sahakar Nagar Tax, Range-4 (3), Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, M. K. Marg, Mumbai 20 Chs, Above Audi Car Showroom, New Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai 53 Pan:Aaacj 2847 H Appellant .. Respondent .. Appellant By Sri Dev Datta Mainkar, Ar Respondent By .. Sri Durga Dutt, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing .. 18-08-16 Date Of Pronouncement .. 18-08-16 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Cit (A)-8, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit (A)-8/Cir.4/165/2013-14 Dated 17-10-2014. Assessment Was Framed By The Acit- 4(3), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Vide His Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 22-03-2013. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Expenses Relatable To Exempted Income By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D (2) (Ii) Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter “The Rules”) At Rs.10,49,330/-.

…its own funds but registered the same in the name of one of the 5 directors. There is no dispute about this fact. In such a circumstance, the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga 201 ITR 995 (Bom.) wherein it has been categorically held that “registration under Motor Vehicle Act is not essential requirement for acquiring ownership of the motor vehicle and purchasing of motor vehicle for valuable consideration from assessee’s account and using the same for the business purpose, depreciation cannot be denied on the ground that the vehi…

ACIT Cir. 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Mbmer & Shri Saktijit Dey

…has capitalized it in its books of account. That being the case, applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. (supra), Varanasi Auto Sales (P) Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 182 (All.) and CIT v/s Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga [1993] 201 ITR 995, the assessee is eligible for depreciation. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. Ground no.(v) is dismissed. 54. In ground no.(vi), the Department has challenged the deletion of addition made on account of bogus and inflated expenditure. 55. As already discussed elsewhere in the order during the…

Kedia Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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)

…rchased by the assessee, use for business purposes, but not registered in the name of the assessee, the assessee was held to be entitled for depreciation. 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 10 Kedia Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd. 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 I…

Dolphin Marine Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 6(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

…Government authorities. He, accordingly, disallowed 50% of the same, which was confirmed by CIT(A). 4.1 Before us, learned Authorized Representative relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga [1993] 201 ITR 995 (BOM), wherein truck was registered in the name of another person beneficially owned by assessee. Transfer not effected under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, does not disentitle the ITA No.6524/Mum/12 A.Y. 07-08 [Dolphin Marine Enterprises P. Ltd. vs. ACIT] Page 5 assessee for depreciation on the vehicle. According to us, registration is n…