CIT v. India Oil Corporation Ltd.

218 ITR 511High Court1996#23671 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. India Oil Corporation Ltd.

M/S. Indus Trust, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2298/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT

Section 234B

…. It was held that, irrespective of the nomenclature, the underlying asset is land, which is not a depreciable asset under the Income-tax Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Reported 218 ITR 511 wherein it was held that leasehold land should be grouped under land and depreciation cannot be claimed on the premium paid. Accordingly, depreciation claimed on sub-lease rights of land amounting to ₹21,50,000 was disallowed. 12.4 Based on the above findings, the AO recalculated the eligible depreciation by classifying the various components of…

Goldmohur Design and Apparel Park Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai

ITA 3971/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldmohar Design & Pr. Cit-7 R. No. 628, 6Th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 Pan – Aadcg1613M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. T. Kipgen &

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ivil Appeal No. 3360 of 2006, dated 08.03.2017), and R.K Palshikar (HUF) Vs. CIT, Madhya Pradesh (1988) SCR (3) 989. Further, reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. India Oil Corporation Ltd. (1996) 218 ITR 511 (Bom). Also, support was drawn from the order of the ITAT, Bangalore, in the case of M/s Cyber Park Development and construction Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1549/Bang/2012, dated 30.06.2010). In order to drive home his claim that de hors registration of the impugned lease agreement which was required to be compulsorily registered, the same as per the…

Vikas Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2332/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Roli Chaubey, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

…epreciation can be granted in respect of premium paid to lease hold land because such premium is not includable in the cost of super structure constructed thereon. In this context my reliance is on the case reported as CIT Vs India Oil Corporation Ltd. (1996) 218 ITR 511. 4.1.4 Further as far as AR’s submission with regard to composite payment made towards land and building is concerned contending that there is no break-up, the same cannot be accepted. This issue has been decided by the ‘A’ Bench of the Hon’ble ITAT Delhi In ITA Nos. 4212 & 4213/Del/2010 in the case reported as Brijwasi Art Press Ltd. Vs DCIT, Ci…