CIT v. High Energy Batteries (India) Ltd.

348 ITR 574High Court2012#20581 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

Judgments citing CIT v. High Energy Batteries (India) Ltd.

DCIT Circle 61(1), Delhi vs. Sukhbir Singh Chabra HUF, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 315/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.315/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Sukhbir Singh Chabra Huf Circle 61(1), Vs. 6, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi. Motia Khan, Delhi. Pan No.Aaahs5683P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 92C

…illions of dollars into India. If the Union of India and Tax Department insist that the investment would directly come from Mauritius and Mauritius alone then the Indo-Mauritius treaty would be dead letter." In CIT v. High Energy Batteries (India) Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 574 (Mad), the assessee had entered into purchase & lease back transaction with its sister concern, Pooni Sugars Ltd. In terms of which, it purchased a boiler for Rs.2.50 Cr. and paid Rs.50 lacs. Balance Rs.2 Cr. was financed by Wipro Finance Ltd. Having purchased the boiler, it was leased back to Pooni Sugars Ltd. Depreciation claimed by the assesse…

Brij Raj Singh Rathaur, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-41, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 315/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.315/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Sukhbir Singh Chabra Huf Circle 61(1), Vs. 6, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi. Motia Khan, Delhi. Pan No.Aaahs5683P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 92C

…illions of dollars into India. If the Union of India and Tax Department insist that the investment would directly come from Mauritius and Mauritius alone then the Indo-Mauritius treaty would be dead letter." In CIT v. High Energy Batteries (India) Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 574 (Mad), the assessee had entered into purchase & lease back transaction with its sister concern, Pooni Sugars Ltd. In terms of which, it purchased a boiler for Rs.2.50 Cr. and paid Rs.50 lacs. Balance Rs.2 Cr. was financed by Wipro Finance Ltd. Having purchased the boiler, it was leased back to Pooni Sugars Ltd. Depreciation claimed by the assesse…

M/S. Srinidhi Textiles, Erode vs. ITO, Erode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 971/CHNY/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

…company followed the provisions of statutes of income tax act Explanation-4A of section 43(1) :- 4 -: and there is no violation of law. The Ld.AR of the assessee relied on the following decisions: 1) 212 ITR 592 (SC) 2) 261 ITR-1 (SC) 3) 239 ITR 775 (SC) 4) 348 ITR 574 3.0 On the other hand, the Ld.DR relied on the CIT’s Order. 4.0 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The assessee company admitted as a partner in the partnership firm and it brought the fixed assets held by the company as share capital by book entry. The assessee relied on the decisions cited above and ar…

M/S Om Welfare Society, Hisar vs. ITO, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1583/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ee also tried to draw the attention of the assessing authority that REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT TO DENY THE BENEFIT AMOUNT TO CHANGE OF OPINION ON SAME FACTS AND NOT PERMISSIBLE and the assessee believed on the rulings of CIT V. High Energy Batteries (India) Ltd. 348 ITR 574 [Madras] it was held that depreciation allowed on leased assets but withdrawing in reassessment not valid and in case of Mrs. Parveen P. Baruch V. DCIT 348 ITR 325 [Bombay] [2012] it was decided that benefit of section 54EC granted taking into account investment of earnest money before date of transfer of assets. Reopening of assessment to deny t…

CIT v. High Energy Batteries (India) Ltd. (348 ITR 574) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax