CIT v. Hon’ble Kerala High Court

236 ITR 416High Court1999#6729 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 155Section 2(11)Section 3(4)Section 32(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 43(6)(c)section 55(2)substance over formsection 49section 43(6)transferee companytransferor companydcf methodsection 43(1)section 55commercial rightsgoing concern

Judgments citing CIT v. Hon’ble Kerala High Court

DCIT,CIRCLE-5(1)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. COFFER CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., TARDEO

ITA 3046/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar & Shri Rohan Deshpande, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 115JSection 3(4)Section 43(1)

…her on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by the judgement of the Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Poulose And Mathen (Put.) Ltd. dated 03.02.1998, (1999) 236 ITR 416 Ker, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has held that the “actual cost" contemplated under Section 43(1) means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reduced by that portion of the cast met by any other person or authority directly or indirectly." 6. "Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in…

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1781/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

…, whereas facts of the cases cited by the assessee are at variance, whereas decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Poulose and Mathera (P) Lts 236 ITR 416 Poulose and Mathera (P) Lts 236 ITR 416 squarely applicable in squarely applicable in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view tha the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view tha revaluation of the assets revaluation of the assets by th…

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1780/MUM/2023[2016-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2016-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

…, whereas facts of the cases cited by the assessee are at variance, whereas decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Poulose and Mathera (P) Lts 236 ITR 416 Poulose and Mathera (P) Lts 236 ITR 416 squarely applicable in squarely applicable in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view tha the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view tha revaluation of the assets revaluation of the assets by th…

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1779/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

…, whereas facts of the cases cited by the assessee are at variance, whereas decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Poulose and Mathera (P) Lts 236 ITR 416 Poulose and Mathera (P) Lts 236 ITR 416 squarely applicable in squarely applicable in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view tha the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view tha revaluation of the assets revaluation of the assets by th…

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1764/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

…, whereas facts of the cases cited by the assessee are at variance, whereas decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Poulose and Mathera (P) Lts 236 ITR 416 Poulose and Mathera (P) Lts 236 ITR 416 squarely applicable in squarely applicable in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view tha the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view tha revaluation of the assets revaluation of the assets by th…

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1763/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

…, whereas facts of the cases cited by the assessee are at variance, whereas decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Poulose and Mathera (P) Lts 236 ITR 416 Poulose and Mathera (P) Lts 236 ITR 416 squarely applicable in squarely applicable in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view tha the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view tha revaluation of the assets revaluation of the assets by th…

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1762/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

…, whereas facts of the cases cited by the assessee are at variance, whereas decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Poulose and Mathera (P) Lts 236 ITR 416 Poulose and Mathera (P) Lts 236 ITR 416 squarely applicable in squarely applicable in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view tha the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view tha revaluation of the assets revaluation of the assets by th…

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1761/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

…, whereas facts of the cases cited by the assessee are at variance, whereas decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Poulose and Mathera (P) Lts 236 ITR 416 Poulose and Mathera (P) Lts 236 ITR 416 squarely applicable in squarely applicable in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view tha the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view tha revaluation of the assets revaluation of the assets by th…

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1760/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

…, whereas facts of the cases cited by the assessee are at variance, whereas decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Poulose and Mathera (P) Lts 236 ITR 416 Poulose and Mathera (P) Lts 236 ITR 416 squarely applicable in squarely applicable in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view tha the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view tha revaluation of the assets revaluation of the assets by th…

MUTHOOT HEALTHCARE P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE ACIT, , THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 413/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 170Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

…mputed the depreciation allowable without considering the revaluation of assets and allowed depreciation of Rs.4,65,07,189/-. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Poulose and Mathen P. Ltd. (236 ITR 416) which is I.T.A. No.413/Coch/2018 binding on the lower authorities. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Suyash Laboratories Ltd. It was submitted that as regards restriction of depreciation, the assessee had taken over the assets of the erstwhile firm at the value determined by the firm and as far as the c…

MTANDT RENTALS LIMITED,THIRUVALLUR vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2410/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2410/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Mtandt Rentals Ltd, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.62/2B, New No.99, Old No.144, Corporate Ward 4(3) Padur Village, Chennai. Poonamallee Taluk. Tiruvallur - 602 105. [Pan Aagcm 2269J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandiyan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)

…(intangible asset). Chowgule & Co. P. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT, Panaji) 9 ITR (Trib) 21; 131 IT 545 Assets of firm taken over by assessee company - Assets revalued and depreciation claimed on enhanced value - Not allowed. CIT vs. Poulose and Mathen (Pvt) Lte (Ker) 236 ITR 416. If circumstances exist showing that a fictitious price has been put on the asst or there is collusion between the vendor and assessee and there has been inflation/ deflation of value for ulterior purposes, it is open to ITO to reject and ascertain the actual cost. JCIT Vs Mahindra Sona Lod. (ITA T, Mum) 96 ITD 303, Giizdar Kajora Coal Mines Ltd.…

M/S. CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6331/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(1)Section 43(1)

…found to be incorrect by any other technical valuation. Hence, we do not subscribe to the conclusion of the authorities below. 19. The Assessing Officer has referred to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Poulose and Mathen (Pvt.) Ltd. 236 ITR 416. In the said case, the assessee was a partner in a partnership firm consisting of nine partners. The partnership firm was dissolved on February 25, 1985 and as per the books of accounts of the firm the written down value of the assets of the firm was Rs. 3,16,110/-. However the assessee company had taken over the assets of the firm after its diss…

M/S. CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5623/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm It(Tp)A No. 5623/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/S Continental Device India Ltd., Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax C-120, Naraina Industrial Area, Circle-3(1), New Delhi-110028 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc1835E Assessee By : Sh. R. K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Ravi Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 35(1)Section 43(1)

…found to be incorrect by any other technical valuation. Hence, we do not subscribe to the conclusion of the authorities below. 19. The Assessing Officer has referred to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Poulose and Mathen (Pvt.) Ltd. 236 ITR 416. In the said case, the assessee was a partner in a partnership firm consisting of nine partners. The partnership firm was dissolved on February 25, 1985 and as per the books of accounts of the firm the written down value of the assets of the firm was Rs. 3,16,110/-. However the assessee company had taken over the assets of the firm after its diss…

M/S. CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 316/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Pardeep Dinodia & R.K. Kapoor, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)Section 43(1)

…ound to be incorrect by any other technical valuation. Hence, we do not subscribe to the conclusion of the authorities below. 19 The Assessing Officer has referred to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Poulose and Mathen (Pvt.) Ltd. 236 ITR 416. In the said case, the assessee was a partner in a partnership firm consisting of nine partners. The partnership firm was dissolved on February 25, 1985 and as per the books of accounts of the firm the written down value of the assets of the firm was Rs. 3,16,110/-. However the assessee company had taken over the assets of the firm after its di…

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1319/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Pardeep Dinodia & R.K. Kapoor, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)Section 43(1)

…ound to be incorrect by any other technical valuation. Hence, we do not subscribe to the conclusion of the authorities below. 19 The Assessing Officer has referred to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Poulose and Mathen (Pvt.) Ltd. 236 ITR 416. In the said case, the assessee was a partner in a partnership firm consisting of nine partners. The partnership firm was dissolved on February 25, 1985 and as per the books of accounts of the firm the written down value of the assets of the firm was Rs. 3,16,110/-. However the assessee company had taken over the assets of the firm after its di…

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 5656/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Pardeep Dinodia & R.K. Kapoor, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)Section 43(1)

…ound to be incorrect by any other technical valuation. Hence, we do not subscribe to the conclusion of the authorities below. 19 The Assessing Officer has referred to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Poulose and Mathen (Pvt.) Ltd. 236 ITR 416. In the said case, the assessee was a partner in a partnership firm consisting of nine partners. The partnership firm was dissolved on February 25, 1985 and as per the books of accounts of the firm the written down value of the assets of the firm was Rs. 3,16,110/-. However the assessee company had taken over the assets of the firm after its di…

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 134/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Pardeep Dinodia & R.K. Kapoor, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)Section 43(1)

…ound to be incorrect by any other technical valuation. Hence, we do not subscribe to the conclusion of the authorities below. 19 The Assessing Officer has referred to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Poulose and Mathen (Pvt.) Ltd. 236 ITR 416. In the said case, the assessee was a partner in a partnership firm consisting of nine partners. The partnership firm was dissolved on February 25, 1985 and as per the books of accounts of the firm the written down value of the assets of the firm was Rs. 3,16,110/-. However the assessee company had taken over the assets of the firm after its di…