CIT v. Heredilla Chemicals Ltd.

225 ITR 532Reported decision1997#13818 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

Judgments citing CIT v. Heredilla Chemicals Ltd.

JCIT(OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JHANDEWALAN vs. SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

ITA 1085/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…the F.Y. 2016-17, the write off cannot be allowed in the A.Y. 2017-18 relevant to the previous year 2016-17. 42. The above position in law has the support of the decision of the jurisdictional Bombay High Court In the case of CIT V/s. Herdilla Chemicals Ltd. 225 ITR 532, the relevant extract of which reads as under:- 21 CO No. 36/Del/2024 Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. “We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The PAN catalyst was purchased by the assessee in the year 1970. It was tying with the assessee as stand by for the phthalic anhydride plant. It is the case of the assessee that over…

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

ITA 1998/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…nt. Merely putting the value under provision of slow moving and non moving item does not lead to deduction of provision from total income of the Assessee. In support of his contention Ld. DR relied upon ruling in case of CIT vs Heredilla Chemicals Ltd. [1997] 225 ITR 532 / 94 Taxman 420. Moreover, Ld. DR has argued that the Assessee has itself realized this and added back provision for slow moving and non moving inventory to arrive at the Book Profit. 49. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. The issue pertains to disallowance of provision made for slow- moving and non-moving…

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

ITA 2646/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…nt. Merely putting the value under provision of slow moving and non moving item does not lead to deduction of provision from total income of the Assessee. In support of his contention Ld. DR relied upon ruling in case of CIT vs Heredilla Chemicals Ltd. [1997] 225 ITR 532 / 94 Taxman 420. Moreover, Ld. DR has argued that the Assessee has itself realized this and added back provision for slow moving and non moving inventory to arrive at the Book Profit. 49. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. The issue pertains to disallowance of provision made for slow- moving and non-moving…

DCIT - 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTHCARE CO. LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for assessment year 2003 – 04 is dismissed

ITA 5195/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Dcit-10(3)(2) Healthcare Co.Ltd. Room No. 509, 5 Th Floor, Aaykar P & G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias Road, Vs. Bhavan, M.K.Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400 Mumbai- 400 020 099 (Appellant) (Respondent) Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Dcit-10(3)(2) Healthcare Co.Ltd. Room No. 509, 5 Th Floor, Aaykar P & G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias Road, Vs. Bhavan, M.K.Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400 Mumbai- 400 020 099 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp6332M Assessee By : Shri. Kanchan Koushal, Shri. Yogesh Thar, Shri. Jishan Jain, Shri. Pratik Shah, Shri. Yogesh Malpani Revenue By : Shri. Rajesh Damor (Cit Dr)

For Appellant: Shri. Kanchan Koushal, Shri. YogeshFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Damor (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92C

…erwise, inventory is becoming obsolete for use, these materials are destroyed within one month from the end of each quarter. The learned assessing officer following the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Herdillia chemicals Ltd 225 ITR 532 rejected the claim of deduction of the assessee and allowed only one fourth of such deduction for the reason that to that extent the material written off in the last quarter of the same would not have been destroyed within the financial year itself. 014. On appeal before the learned CIT – A the claim of the assessee was allowed. Therefore, the l…

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for assessment year 2003 – 04 is dismissed

ITA 4488/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Dcit-10(3)(2) Healthcare Co.Ltd. Room No. 509, 5 Th Floor, Aaykar P & G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias Road, Vs. Bhavan, M.K.Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400 Mumbai- 400 020 099 (Appellant) (Respondent) Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Dcit-10(3)(2) Healthcare Co.Ltd. Room No. 509, 5 Th Floor, Aaykar P & G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias Road, Vs. Bhavan, M.K.Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400 Mumbai- 400 020 099 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp6332M Assessee By : Shri. Kanchan Koushal, Shri. Yogesh Thar, Shri. Jishan Jain, Shri. Pratik Shah, Shri. Yogesh Malpani Revenue By : Shri. Rajesh Damor (Cit Dr)

For Appellant: Shri. Kanchan Koushal, Shri. YogeshFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Damor (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92C

…erwise, inventory is becoming obsolete for use, these materials are destroyed within one month from the end of each quarter. The learned assessing officer following the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Herdillia chemicals Ltd 225 ITR 532 rejected the claim of deduction of the assessee and allowed only one fourth of such deduction for the reason that to that extent the material written off in the last quarter of the same would not have been destroyed within the financial year itself. 014. On appeal before the learned CIT – A the claim of the assessee was allowed. Therefore, the l…

GATEWAY DISTRIPARKS(KERALA) LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 216/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.216/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gateway Distriparks (Kerala) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Door No. 26/1804, Income-Tax, Circle-1(2), Kochi Chakiat House, Subramaniam Road, Willington Island, Kochi-682 003. [Pan:Aaccg 6616P] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee By Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2018

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT and also submitted that premium on lease also is not entitled for depreciation. Further, he relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Heredilla Chemicals Ltd. (1997) (225 ITR 532) wherein it was held that premium paid on leasehold land is not includible in the cost of the building constructed thereon for allowance of depreciation. I.T.A. No.216/C/2018 6. In reply to this, the Ld. AR submitted that the judgment relied upon by the Ld. DR is relating to the assessment year 1975-76 and thereafter, there was an amendment fro…

DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ASSOCIATED PIGMENTS LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 2042/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: M.Satnaliwala, FCA

…with a view to reduce the profits or the value of assets for that matter. The facts of the cases relied upon by the Assessing Officer are not squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case. In the case of CIT vs. Herdilla Chemicals Ltd. reported in 225 ITR 532, the conclusion to which the Hon’ble Court reached is that the “Assessee cannot claim deduction of the value of asset written off on the ground on the ground that it has become absolute so long as the asset has not been disposed off. In this case, the approval accorded is for write off as on 31.03.2011. There is no material brought on record to i…

CIT v. Heredilla Chemicals Ltd. (225 ITR 532) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax