CIT v. Estate & Finance Ltd.

111 ITR 119High Court1978#22127 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 32(2)Section 72(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Estate & Finance Ltd.

HOTEL AYODHYA,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/PUN/2025[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2025

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(1)Section 73

…3 4. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the paper book running into 308 pages and also referred to the judgements of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Estate & Finance Ltd., 111 ITR 119 (Bombay) and the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Deepak Textiles Industries Ltd., [1995] 81 Taxman 375 (Gujarat) and stated that the unabsorbed depreciation is different from business loss and it can be carried forward for unlimited period and can be set-off against the income from other sources also. 6. Ld. DR supported the…

JABIL CIRCUIT INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -3, MUMBAI

ITA 349/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.349/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jabil Circuit India Pvt. Ltd. Arena House, 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 103 Road No. 12, Opp Tulip Telecom Marol Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. बनाम / Vs. Pcit-03, Mumbai Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7114K (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Revenue By: Shri Nitesh Joshi Shri Ankush Kapoor (Cit Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2024 Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: आदेश / Order This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-03, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 18.01.2021 For

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 263(1)

…see's claim of depreciation on a barge which had sunk and retrieved but not used for the business for the whole of the year had been upheld. The Ld AR also cited the decision of several cases including that of Bombay High Court in CIT vs Estate & Finance Ltd (111 ITR 119) to support the action of AO allowing depreciation. Thus, according to Ld. AR, the depreciation claim even for a unit not functioning was allowable after the concept of block of asset has been brought in statute. And convinced by the facts, and understanding the concept of block of assets, the AO allowed the claim for depreciation in respect of C…

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.REGENCY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY INTERNATIONAL CLOTHING P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2434/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhandy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Regency Property Tax-3(3)(1),Room No. 609, 6Th Investments Pvt. Ltd., Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. (Formerly International Clothing Pvt. Ltd) 77, Nariman Bhavan, 227, Vs. Road,Mumbai – 400 020 Nariman Point,Mumbai –21

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Ojha, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Satish Mody, A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32(2)Section 72(1)

…come from House Property and Income from Other Sources and further to set off of earlier years' business losses against business income of current year following the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Estate & Finance Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 119 (Born) dated 16/11/1976 which is as per the provisions laid down in Income TaxAct, 1922? P a g e | 2 ITA No.2434/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 Dy. CIT-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s Regency Property Investments Pvt. Ltd. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in relying on a decision which was based on th…

CIT v. Estate & Finance Ltd. (111 ITR 119) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax