CIT v. Geo Tech Construction Corporation

244 ITR 452High Court2000#5214 most cited

What is CIT v. Geo Tech Construction Corporation authority for?

An asset can be considered 'used' for business purposes, entitling the assessee to depreciation, even if it was only passively used or kept ready for use. The definition of 'used' for depreciation purposes is broader than actual physical employment.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Geo Tech Construction Corporation · 244 ITR 452 · depreciation · passive use · ready for use · section 32 · user for business · plant and machinery · asset kept ready

Also reported as

206 CTR 141

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 80A(6)Section 80IASection 80IA(8)

Judgments citing CIT v. Geo Tech Construction Corporation

SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 258/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 257 & 258/Jodh/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEARS- 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Sambhav Energy Vs ACIT, Limited Central Circle-01, 5, 1st Floor, Damodaran Jodhpur Street, Kellys, Chennai (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AAJCS 8821 R Assessee By Sh. Amit Kothari (CA) Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, CIT-DR Date of hearing 01/11/2022 Date of 02/11/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: B.R. BASKARAN, AM Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders dated…

SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 257/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 257 & 258/Jodh/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEARS- 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Sambhav Energy Vs ACIT, Limited Central Circle-01, 5, 1st Floor, Damodaran Jodhpur Street, Kellys, Chennai (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AAJCS 8821 R Assessee By Sh. Amit Kothari (CA) Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, CIT-DR Date of hearing 01/11/2022 Date of 02/11/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: B.R. BASKARAN, AM Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders dated…

SHRI KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 77/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Magow, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rahul Dhawan, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 250(6)

…h to cover intended use including passive use even though it may not be actually used as may seen from the following decisions: 10 Kanav Khanna v. Asstt. CIT a CTT Vs. O.P. Khanna & Sons (1983) 140ITR 558(P&H); b) CIT Vs. Geo Tech Construction Corpn. (2000) 244 ITR 452(Ker.); c) CIT Vs. Refrigeration & Allied Industries (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del); d) CIT Vs. Vindhyachal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 272 ITR 583(MP.); e) CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement Ltd. (1945) 13 ITR 415(Pat.); f) CIT Vs. Kanoria General Dealers Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 524(Cal).” 6. The assessee filed the written submissions which are kept in the…

SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1607/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT DR &
Section 250(6)

…n is not allowable as the gas is not supplied through the pipeline is not acceptable. 3.8 The appellant humbly draws the attention of your honour to the following decisions a. Decision of Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Geo Tech Construction Corporation (2000) 244 ITR 452 where in it was held that I.T.A No. 1607 & 1533/Ahd/2016 & Ors. A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 10 Sabarmati Gas Limited vs. ACIT "Depreciation — User for business — There is no requirement in s. 32 that the assets should be owned and used for the whole of previous year in question—Wider meaning of the word "used" will include cases where an asset is kept r…

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1533/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT DR &
Section 250(6)

…n is not allowable as the gas is not supplied through the pipeline is not acceptable. 3.8 The appellant humbly draws the attention of your honour to the following decisions a. Decision of Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Geo Tech Construction Corporation (2000) 244 ITR 452 where in it was held that I.T.A No. 1607 & 1533/Ahd/2016 & Ors. A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 10 Sabarmati Gas Limited vs. ACIT "Depreciation — User for business — There is no requirement in s. 32 that the assets should be owned and used for the whole of previous year in question—Wider meaning of the word "used" will include cases where an asset is kept r…

INDUS LEAGUE CLOTHING LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 82/BANG/2018[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2021AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 43(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner of Income- Vs. M/s Indus League Clothing Ltd., tax, No.22, VK Kalyani Commercial Circle-11(4), Complex, Opp.BDA Office, Bengaluru. Kumara Park Road, Bengaluru-560 020. PAN – AAACI 5392 Q REVENUE ASSESSEE Assessee by : Shri L Bharath, C.A Revenue by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 27.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : .11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the…

SAHAYAK ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1874/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Sri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…ITA 1874 of 2018 Sahayak Engg P Ltd Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ SMC Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sahayak Engg (P) Ltd Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AACCS8210P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue by: Sri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, DR Date of hearing: 04/06/2020 Date of pronouncement: 11/06/2020 ORDER This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2015-16 against the order of the CIT (A)-3, Hyderabad, dated 20.06.18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company which is eng…

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 279/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 32

…ion Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 314 (2) CIT (9)(1) Mumbai vs. Broskalis Dredging India (P) Ltd. (2012) (8) TM 11447-Mumbai ITAT. (3) National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT – Delhi High Court (2013) 357 ITR 253. (4) CIT vs. Geo Tech Construction Corporation (244 ITR 452 (Ker.) 10. In any case, in our view, the assessee has submitted the explanation that during the impugned year, all the floors were used for the purpose of the business of the assessee in one form or the other and therefore, the twin conditions for allowing depreciation, i..e, ownership of the building and the building has been put to use for the…

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 278/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 32

…ion Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 314 (2) CIT (9)(1) Mumbai vs. Broskalis Dredging India (P) Ltd. (2012) (8) TM 11447-Mumbai ITAT. (3) National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT – Delhi High Court (2013) 357 ITR 253. (4) CIT vs. Geo Tech Construction Corporation (244 ITR 452 (Ker.) 10. In any case, in our view, the assessee has submitted the explanation that during the impugned year, all the floors were used for the purpose of the business of the assessee in one form or the other and therefore, the twin conditions for allowing depreciation, i..e, ownership of the building and the building has been put to use for the…

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 277/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 32

…ion Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 314 (2) CIT (9)(1) Mumbai vs. Broskalis Dredging India (P) Ltd. (2012) (8) TM 11447-Mumbai ITAT. (3) National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT – Delhi High Court (2013) 357 ITR 253. (4) CIT vs. Geo Tech Construction Corporation (244 ITR 452 (Ker.) 10. In any case, in our view, the assessee has submitted the explanation that during the impugned year, all the floors were used for the purpose of the business of the assessee in one form or the other and therefore, the twin conditions for allowing depreciation, i..e, ownership of the building and the building has been put to use for the…

GOLDEN COMPUTERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2783/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Golden Computers Pvt Ltd Vs Dy.Cit 8(1), Unit No.602, 6Th Floor, Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deck Plaza, Midc, Andheri Mumbai-400020 (E), Mumbai-400 093 Pan : Aaacg1233E Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 80

…on. The Ld.AR relied upon the order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Fluid Controls Manufacturing Co 280 ITR 86 (Guj) and CIT vs India Tea & Timber Trading Co (1996) 221 ITR 857(861)(Guu) and CIT vs Geo Tech Construction Corporation (2000) 244 ITR 452 (446)(Ker). 7. In other alternative submission, the Ld.AR submits that there is no personal expenditure in case of company as held by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co vs CIT (2002) 253 ITR 749(Guj) wherein it was held that whether the vehicle belonging to an assessee company, where the vehicle belonging to assessee company a…

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACJ7079D Assessee by : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR Date of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 ORDER Per N.…

REYMOUNT COMMODITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3885/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 28Section 68

…authorities. Once the asset is ready for put to use, then depreciation on such asset cannot be disallowed. This legal position was further strengthened by the decision of Hon’be Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Geotech Construction Corporation (2000) 244 ITR 452 (Ker) wherein it was held that an 37 Reymont Commodities P Ltd asset which is kept ready for use is also eligible for depreciation. In yet another case, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Associated Cement Company Ltd (1968) 68 ITR 3478 (Bom) observed that where the asset belongs to the assessee and are used by it in the carry…

M/S. BUSINESS INDIA TELEVISION INTERNATIONAL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03 is dismissed; whereas the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment

ITA 1358/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O. P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Subhakant Sahu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…d assessee would be ineligible for claim of depreciation on the assets which were kept ready for use. Reliance was placed on the following decisions; i. CIT vs. Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd., 247 ITR 12 ii. CIT vs. GeoTech Construction Corporation 244 ITR 452, iii. Capital Bus Services (P), Ltd., 123 ITR 404. 18. Ld. CIT (A) after referring to the judgments of Hon'ble 13 I.T.A. No.4371, 4419/Del/2010 & 1358/Del/2013 Ltd., 187 Taxman 111; and CIT vs. Yamaha Motor India (P). Ltd, 226 CTR 304, held that in the concept of ‘block of assets’ used for the purpose of business would mean use of ‘block of ass…

M/S. KLA INDIA PUBLIC LTD.,DELHI vs. JCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3332/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

…used, the assessee is eligible for depreciation. In other words, even "passive use" distinct from "active use" is the determinative test for claim of depreciation. Reliance is placed on the following decisions : i) CIT v. Geo Tech Construction Corporation, 244 ITR 452 (Ker) ii) CIT vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., 206 CTR 141 (P&H) iii). CIT vs. Nahar Export Ltd., 296 ITR 419, 296 ITR 419 (P&H) iv). Capital Bus Service (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 123 ITR 404. v). CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., 341 ITR 467 vi). CIT v. Insilco Ltd., 320 ITR 322 vii). CIT v. Radio Today Broadcasting Ltd., 382 ITR 42 (Del.) viii). CIT v. Sougher…

M/S. EASTERN SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1951/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…clude not only cases where the machinery or plant are actively employed but also cases where there is passive user of the same in business. An asset could be said to be in use when it is kept ready for use. " • CIT V. Geo Tech Construction Corporation (2000) 244 ITR 452 (Ker): In the said case, the assessee purchased two tippers on March 29, 1986, and claimed depreciation allowance for the assessment year 1986-87 on the same. The Assessing Officer did not allow depreciation on the ground that the assessee had not produced any evidence to show that they were put to use before March 31, 1986. On appeal, the Tribu…

M/S. EASTERN SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1950/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…clude not only cases where the machinery or plant are actively employed but also cases where there is passive user of the same in business. An asset could be said to be in use when it is kept ready for use. " • CIT V. Geo Tech Construction Corporation (2000) 244 ITR 452 (Ker): In the said case, the assessee purchased two tippers on March 29, 1986, and claimed depreciation allowance for the assessment year 1986-87 on the same. The Assessing Officer did not allow depreciation on the ground that the assessee had not produced any evidence to show that they were put to use before March 31, 1986. On appeal, the Tribu…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. ARCOTECH LTD (FORMERLY SKS LTD.)

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/71/2013HC Delhi12 Sept 2013
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…Page 7 of 21 that as far as claim for depreciation of plant and machinery is concerned. Claim of depreciation was a debatable issue. Passive use entitles an assessee to claim depreciation (see CIT versus Geo Tech Construction Corporation, [2000] 244 ITR 452 (Ker.) and Commissioner of Income Tax versus Refrigeration and Allied Industries Limited, [2001] 247 ITR 12). No manufacturing activities were conducted during the assessment year in question but the assessee had approached Board of Financial Reconstruction for rehabilitation of the company under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VI vs. TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.

Appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA - 266 / 2009HC Delhi06 Aug 2010
Section 32(1)Section 37(2)Section 40ASection 43ASection 43B

…are as poles as under and the court cannot invoke an equitable rule in the construction of a taxing statute." - The High Court of Allahabad, in CIT Vs. Bombay Bhushan Press, 9 143 CTR 52 and the Kerala High Court in CIT Vs. GEO Tech Construction Corporation, 244 ITR 45 held same view while interpreting the unamended provision. Therefore, we answer this question in affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. - Coming to question no.1 as proposed by the Department in this 10. appeal relates to disallowing certain expenditures due to hospitality and sale promotion expenses to be in the natur…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VI vs. TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.

Appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA/280/2008HC Delhi05 Aug 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

Section 32(1)Section 37(2)Section 40ASection 43ASection 43B

…poles as under and the court cannot invoke an equitable rule in the construction of a taxing statute.” 9. The High Court of Allahabad, in CIT Vs. Bombay Bhushan Press, 143 CTR 52 and the Kerala High Court in CIT Vs. GEO Tech Construction Corporation, 244 ITR 45 held same view while interpreting the un- amended provision. Therefore, we answer this question in affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 10. Coming to question no.1 as proposed by the Department in this appeal relates to disallowing certain expenditures due to hospitality and sale promotion expenses to be in the…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2