CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd.

59 ITR 555Supreme Court of India1966#4901 most cited

What is CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Section 72 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with the carry forward of business losses and does not encompass the carry forward of depreciation, which is provided for under Section 32(2).

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. · 59 ITR 555 · Section 32(2) · Section 72 · carry forward of depreciation · business losses · unabsorbed depreciation

Judgments citing CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd.

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 2458/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32(1)

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“H” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.2458/MUM/2015\n(Assessment Year : 2010-11)\nThermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd.,\n403 – 404, 'B' Wing, Delphi,\nHiranandani Business Park,\nMumbai - 400076\nAppellant\nPAN: AABCT3207A\nv/s\nRespondent\nDCIT - 15(3)(1),\nRoom No.451, Aayakar Bhavan,\nNew Marine Lines,\nMumbai - 400020\nAssessee by : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Amol Mahajan,\nMs. Chandani Shah, Ms. Hinal Shah\nRevenue by : Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR\nShri Pravin Salunkhe,…

SUVINO TELEVIDEO,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 2099/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2013-14
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(1)Section 72(2)

…egal fiction and when it becomes\npart of the current year depreciation then it was liable to be set off\nagainst any other income. The assessee relied upon the judgment of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaipuria China Clay\nMines (P) Ltd. (59 ITR 555) where it was held that \"it is wrong to\nassume that Section 72 also deals with the carrying forward of\ndepreciation. This carry forward having been provide in Section 32(2)\nin a different manner, Section 72 deals with losses other than losses due\nto depreciation”.\n\n5. The ld. AO has considered these submissions of the assessee and\nconclude…

ITO, WARD - 10(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. EASTERN SUGAR AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

ITA 2660/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 250

…he machinery hire charges will be assessable under head Income from other sources, therefore ground No. 2 is Partly Allowed.” 3. This decision follows the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 555 and other judgements. Thus 2 I.T.A. No. 2660/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Eastern Sugar and Industries Limited. we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). We uphold the same and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Kolkata, the 16th April, 2021. [Aby T. Varkey] [J.…

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(2),, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1914/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154

…to unabsorbed depreciation, thereby meaning that the unabsorbed depreciation is eligible for carry forward and set off for any number of years without any restriction. The following judicial pronouncements in CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 555 (SC), CIT Vs Mother India Refrigeration Inds (P) Ltd 155 ITR 711 (SC), CIT v Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd (1991) 191 ITR 0156 (Kar) explains the above principles. 9.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Yokogawa India Ltd [2017] 391 ITR 274 has held that deduction under section 10A should be computed and allowed while comput…

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1913/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154

…to unabsorbed depreciation, thereby meaning that the unabsorbed depreciation is eligible for carry forward and set off for any number of years without any restriction. The following judicial pronouncements in CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 555 (SC), CIT Vs Mother India Refrigeration Inds (P) Ltd 155 ITR 711 (SC), CIT v Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd (1991) 191 ITR 0156 (Kar) explains the above principles. 9.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Yokogawa India Ltd [2017] 391 ITR 274 has held that deduction under section 10A should be computed and allowed while comput…

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1912/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154

…to unabsorbed depreciation, thereby meaning that the unabsorbed depreciation is eligible for carry forward and set off for any number of years without any restriction. The following judicial pronouncements in CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 555 (SC), CIT Vs Mother India Refrigeration Inds (P) Ltd 155 ITR 711 (SC), CIT v Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd (1991) 191 ITR 0156 (Kar) explains the above principles. 9.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Yokogawa India Ltd [2017] 391 ITR 274 has held that deduction under section 10A should be computed and allowed while comput…

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1911/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154

…to unabsorbed depreciation, thereby meaning that the unabsorbed depreciation is eligible for carry forward and set off for any number of years without any restriction. The following judicial pronouncements in CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 555 (SC), CIT Vs Mother India Refrigeration Inds (P) Ltd 155 ITR 711 (SC), CIT v Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd (1991) 191 ITR 0156 (Kar) explains the above principles. 9.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Yokogawa India Ltd [2017] 391 ITR 274 has held that deduction under section 10A should be computed and allowed while comput…

M/S. HINDON RIVER MILLS LTD,,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2302/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2302/Del/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13 Hindon River Mills Ltd., P.O-Hindon Nagar, Dasne, Ghaziabad. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaach9966 Vs The Dcit, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-1, Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor &For Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)Section 72

…id down by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Suresh Industries Pvt. Ltd. relating to Assessment Year 2007-08 in ITA No. 5374/Mum/2011 dated 10.10.2012 which in turn relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaipuria China Clay Mines Pvt.Ltd. 59 ITR 555, Rajapalayam Mills 115 ITR 77 and Virmani Industries Pvt.Ltd. 216 ITR 607 and applied the said propositions vide paras 14 & 15 at pages 05 to 12 and allowed the claim of the assessee, by holding that brought forward depreciation had to be treated as current year depreciation under the provisions of section 32(2) of the Act. The Tribunal (supra)…

S.SATHYARAJ,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for both the assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 1220/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1219 & 1220/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2014-15) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Shris. Sathyaraj, No.13A, Brahadambal Road, Non-Corporate Ward-3(1), Nungambakkam, Namakkal. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafps6100C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri J. Chandrasekar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri J. Chandrasekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 72

…rd, the ld.DR relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Virmani Industries (P) Ltd, [1995] 83 Taxman 343 (SC), which is rendered in the context of Section 32 following the decision in CIT vs. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd, (1966) 59 ITR 555. Inviting our attention to 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, the ld.AR submitted that as :-5-: ITA Nos. 1219 & 1220/Chny/2019 far as unabsorbed depreciation is concerned, the law as per 1922 and as per Income Tax Act, 1961 is same with no variation and hence pleaded that the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 may be allowed. 3.1 With re…

S.SATHYARAJ,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for both the assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 1219/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1219 & 1220/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2014-15) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Shris. Sathyaraj, No.13A, Brahadambal Road, Non-Corporate Ward-3(1), Nungambakkam, Namakkal. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafps6100C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri J. Chandrasekar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri J. Chandrasekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 72

…rd, the ld.DR relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Virmani Industries (P) Ltd, [1995] 83 Taxman 343 (SC), which is rendered in the context of Section 32 following the decision in CIT vs. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd, (1966) 59 ITR 555. Inviting our attention to 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, the ld.AR submitted that as :-5-: ITA Nos. 1219 & 1220/Chny/2019 far as unabsorbed depreciation is concerned, the law as per 1922 and as per Income Tax Act, 1961 is same with no variation and hence pleaded that the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 may be allowed. 3.1 With re…

M/S. HINDON RIVER MILLS LTD,,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 2301/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiya[A.Y 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

…are identical to the facts considered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of M/s Suresh Industries Pvt Ltd ITA No. 5374/Mum/2011 wherein the Tribunal has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaipuria China Clay Mines Pvt Ltd 59 ITR 555, Rajapalayam Mills 115 ITR 777 and Virmani Industries Pvt Ltd 216 ITR 607. 12. The ld. AR further pointed out that similar view was taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Times Guaranty Ltd 4 ITR [T] 210. The ld. AR further pointed out that the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal has followed the order of the Mumbai Bench. The ld.…

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.REGENCY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY INTERNATIONAL CLOTHING P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2434/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhandy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Regency Property Tax-3(3)(1),Room No. 609, 6Th Investments Pvt. Ltd., Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. (Formerly International Clothing Pvt. Ltd) 77, Nariman Bhavan, 227, Vs. Road,Mumbai – 400 020 Nariman Point,Mumbai –21

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Ojha, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Satish Mody, A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32(2)Section 72(1)

…it for an indefinite period and „set off‟ against any head of income. In order to drive home its aforesaid contention the assessee had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jaipuria China Clay wins (P) Ltd. (1966) 59 ITR 555 (SC). However, the A.O was not persuaded to accept the aforesaid claim of the assessee, and was of the view, that as the judicial pronouncement relied upon by the assessee was rendered in context of the Income Tax Act, 1922, therefore, the same would not be relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in the case before him. On the basis of his af…

MALAYALAM COMMUNICATIONS LTD,,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 106/COCH/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 32(2)

…te a request having been made, there is no permission for set off under section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as against the unabsorbed depreciation which, in any event, is permissible as has been held in CIT vs. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd. (1966) (59 ITR 555) (SC). We, hence, partly allow the appeal and remand the matter to the Tribunal for considering the specific issue noticed above. There shall be no order as to costs.” Hence, the issue came up for fresh adjudication. 3. The Ld. AR drew our attention to theof the certificate issued by Dhanalakshmi Bank, giving details of the Fixed Deposits made…

M/S KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as common grounds of law are raised by the assessee

ITA 1500/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2009-10
Section 14Section 28Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…or profession chargeable under section 28. But this court has repeatedly held that the said expression is not so confined and that it refers to income under all the heads of income specified in section 14. In Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd.'s case [1966] 59 ITR 555 (SC), the facts were these : the total income of the respondentassessee for the assessment year 1952-53 before charging depreciation was Rs. 14,041. After deducting depreciation of Rs. 5,360, the Income-tax Officer computed the profit at Rs. 8,681. Against this profit, he set off the losses of an earlier year. Having done this, the Income-tax Offi…

STAINLESS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1384/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-4(3), (Now Known As Stainless Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ India Ltd.), M.K. Road, Vs. 226, 3Rd Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacs7067A

Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 71(2)

…be claimed only from profits or gains and profits or gains are specifically confined to profits and gains of business only. The Ld. CIT(A) also distinguished the facts of the assessee's case with those of (a) CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 555(SC) (b) Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 777(SC) and (c) CIT v. Virmani Indus. (P.) Ltd. [1995] 216 ITR 607/ 83 Taxman 343(SC). The Ld. CIT(A) held that the current years' depreciation is not allowed to be set off against the income under the head Long Term capital gains. Further the claim of the assessee for allowing the unabsorbed de…

PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 8(2) MUMBAI

C.A. No.-000238-000238 - 2012Supreme Court09 Oct 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 143(1)(a)Section 32Section 80

…taken the correct view in respect of the issues with which we are concerned in the present appeal. The High Court has not properly appreciated the context in which this Court made observations in the case of Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd. [(1966) 59 ITR 555 : AIR 1966 SC 1187] on which the High Court has relied. In the later two cases of Chokshi Metal Refinery [(1977) 107 ITR 63 (Guj)] and Arun Textile “C” [(1991) 192 ITR 700 (Guj)] the Gujarat High Court has itself taken, if we may say so, a different view falling in line with the views of the Bombay, Punjab and Haryana, Karnataka, An…

ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. ANIL PRINERS LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5859/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2009-10 Acit, Anil Printers Ltd. Circle-6(1), R. No.506, 2, Kakad Industrial Estate, बनाम/ 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Matunga West, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400016 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aacca6914C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 114JSection 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 32(2)Section 32oSection 42Section 80

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ए, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" । Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member Assessment Year-2009-10 ACIT, Anil Printers Ltd. Circle-6(1), R. No.506, 2, Kakad Industrial Estate, बनाम/ 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Matunga West, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400016 Mumbai-400020 PAN No.AACCA6914C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri M.Murli-DR Shri Mayur Kisnadwala "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / D…

I.T.O WD - 7(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S WINSOME BREWERIES LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 622/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Shital C. Das, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

…the decision rendered Gujrat High Court. On a plain reading of provisions of section 32(2), it is amply clear that this section does not prescribe any time limit for carry forward an unabsorbed depreciation. In CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 555 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that ‘it is wrong to 6 Winsome Breweries Ltd. AY 2009-10 assume the section 72 also deals with the carrying forward of depreciation". According to the Hon'ble Court, this carry forward having been provided in section 32(2) in a different manner, on 72 deals with losses other than losses due to depreciation.…

SUNSHIELD CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5045/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5045/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

For Respondent: Shri Nitin Waghmode ,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 29Section 30Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 71

…ting as the current depreciation for the assessment year and is this allowable as a deduction.” 7.4 While deciding the issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has followed the earlier decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd. in 59 ITR 555, Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. in 115 ITR 777 which were rendered by the Bench consisting of three judges. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that since the Bench headed by three Hon’ble judges, therefore, the decisions of earlier Bench are binding on them. At page 216 in para ‘f’ , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that ; “We have ex…

DCIT - 20(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. J.B. ENGG. WORKS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 616/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Dcit-20(1) J.B. Eng. Works Room No.603, 6Th Flr, 797, Jesia Bldg. Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel Jamshed Road, Parsi Vs. Mumbai-400012 Colony, Dadar (E) Mumbai -400014 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafj5106C Revenue By Shri S. S. Kumaran (Dr) Respondent Assessee By Mr. Percy Pardiwalla,Sr. Advocate & Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,जे,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI "ी अ"मत शु"ला, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2003-04 DCIT-20(1) J.B. Eng. Works Room No.603, 6th FLR, 797, Jesia Bldg. Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel Jamshed Road, Parsi Vs. Mumbai-400012 Colony, Dadar (E) Mumbai -400014 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No.AAAFJ5106C Revenue by Shri S. S. Kumaran (DR) Respondent Assessee by Mr. Percy Pardiwalla,Sr. Advocate & Ms. Vasanti B. Patel 08/09…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. (59 ITR 555) — Cited in 24 Judgments | BharatTax