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

59 ITR 555Supreme Court of India1966#4893 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 366,339 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

Read the full judgment

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

M/S. Karnataka Instrade Corporation Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in part

ITA/339/2009HC Karnataka09 Oct 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 144Section 145Section 260

…ontention of the learned counsel for the Revenue cannot be accepted in view of the authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Viramani Industries case. 31 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (1966) 59 ITR 555 (CIT V/S JAIPURIA CHAINA CLAY MINES (P) LIMITED) held that unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward and would be set-off even against the profit under the head other than the “business income”. The relevant paragraph reads as under: “It is, therefore, clear that effect must be given to depreciation allowance first against th…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Baluja Shoe Co (Exports)

ITA - 782 / 2011HC Delhi31 May 2011
Section 50

…essing Officer to allow set off of unabsorbed depreciation not only against the disclosed income but also against other rights of income. This order of the CIT(A) has been upheld by the ITAT relying upon the judgments in CIT v. Jaipur China Clay (SC) 59 ITR 155 and CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration (SC) 155 ITR 711. 7. We do not find any question of law which arises in this case. 8. Dismissed. . . . A.K. SIKRI, J. . M.L. MEHTA, J. MAY 31, 2011 AK . . . . . 04 #…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Govind Nagar Sugar Limited

ITA/164/2008HC Delhi25 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 32(2)Section 80

…ITA No. 164/2008 Page 1 of 13 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 164/2008 Judgment Reserved on: 24.02.2011 % Date of Pronouncement:25.03.2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX …APPELLANT Through : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Anand, Advocate. Versus GOVIND NAGAR SUGAR LIMITED …… RESPONDENT Through : Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh and Mr. Dushyant, Advocate CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mahendra Mills

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-005394-005394 - 1994Supreme Court15 Mar 2000
For Respondent: MAHENDRA MILLS
Section 32Section 34Section 72Section 73

…for depreciation was a case of choice for the assessee, it would negate the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Calcutta vs. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 21 Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd. [(1966) 59 ITR 555 (SC)] and Garden Silk Weaving Factory vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [(1991) 189 ITR 512 (SC)]. Income-tax Officer during the course of assessment can call for the records. Mr. Verma said that during the course of assessment proceedings, Income-tax Officer can call for the account books of the assessee, look into the sam…