CIT v. Karnataka Power Corpn

157 ITR 86Supreme Court of India1986#2807 most cited

What is CIT v. Karnataka Power Corpn authority for?

The definition of 'plant' for income tax purposes is broad, encompassing assets like technical know-how and software, making them eligible for depreciation allowances. This includes items like film software libraries, treated as important apparatus for business.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Scientific Engineering House Pvt Ltd · CIT v Karnataka Power Corporation · 157 ITR 86 SC · definition of plant · technical know-how as plant · software as plant · depreciation allowance · section 2(11) block of assets · section 32AC · capital asset · section 35D · written down value

Sections most often in play

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234BSection 35DSection 37Section 40(a)(i)Section 80-O

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(3)section 43(3)section 10(5)section 14a(1)section 42strategic investmentsection 80ia(4)section 115jb(2)section 35dcolourable devicewritten down valueblock of assets

Judgments citing CIT v. Karnataka Power Corpn

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5658/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…nd applying ratios set in CIT Vs Premier Automobiles Ltd\n(1994) 206 ITR 1 (Mumbai-HC), CIT VS Krishna Bottlers Pvt Ltd (1989) 175 ITR\n154 (AP-HC), CIT VS Margadarsi Chit Fund (P) Ltd (1997) 227 ITR 646 (AP-HC),\nScientific Engg. House (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (1986) 157 ITR 86 (SC), Sundaram Motors\n(P.) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax (1969) 71 ITR 587 (MAD-HC),\nCommissioner of Income-tax Vs Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. (1978)\n122 ITR 288 (BOM-HC) and R.C. Chemical Industries v. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 330\n(Del-HC) has stated that since the assessee-company is in the business of satellite\ntelevision broa…

M/S T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAIVS.ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 (1), CHENNAI

ITA 2405/CHNY/2019[2014-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2014-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 92C(2)

…e of depreciation or else claim it as normal asset eligible for routine rate of depreciation in furtherance of its claim u/s 32AC. It was submitted that the judicial ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Scientific Engineering House Pvt Ltd 157 ITR 86, which has been heavily relied upon in this case therefore has no applicability qua facts of the present case. 18.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. Before proceeding further, we deem it appropriate to extract the relevant statutory provisions of the Act as well as the judicial ratio laid by the H…

DY. CIT SPECIAL RANGE-1, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. M/S INDO GULF FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALSCOEPORATION LTD, SULTANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 1539/LKW/1996[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Nov 2024AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 256(1)Section 32ASection 35D

…at very ground. The assessee being aggrieved has raised this ground before us in second appeal. 25. The learned counsel for the assessee has vehemently pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd. Vs. C.I.T. (157 ITR 86) has given a very wide meaning to the term "plant" and at page 96 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has formulated the test that, in other words, the test would be: Does the article fulfill the function of a plant in the assessee's trading activity: Is it a tool of his trade with which he carries on his business: If the answer is in the affirmative, it w…

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 304/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…g of the oil and therefore, the same was constructed and this aspect has not been considered. 3.2. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Scientific Engg. House (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 86/[1985] 23 Taxman 66 (SC) and more particularly on paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 which reads as under :— '10. The next question is whether the acquisition of such a capital asset is depreciable asset or not? Under section 32 depreciation allowance is, subject to the provisions of section 34, permissible only in respect of certain assets specified ther…

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 193/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…g of the oil and therefore, the same was constructed and this aspect has not been considered. 3.2. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Scientific Engg. House (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 86/[1985] 23 Taxman 66 (SC) and more particularly on paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 which reads as under :— '10. The next question is whether the acquisition of such a capital asset is depreciable asset or not? Under section 32 depreciation allowance is, subject to the provisions of section 34, permissible only in respect of certain assets specified ther…

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 167/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…g of the oil and therefore, the same was constructed and this aspect has not been considered. 3.2. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Scientific Engg. House (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 86/[1985] 23 Taxman 66 (SC) and more particularly on paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 which reads as under :— '10. The next question is whether the acquisition of such a capital asset is depreciable asset or not? Under section 32 depreciation allowance is, subject to the provisions of section 34, permissible only in respect of certain assets specified ther…

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

ITA 166/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…g of the oil and therefore, the same was constructed and this aspect has not been considered. 3.2. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Scientific Engg. House (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 86/[1985] 23 Taxman 66 (SC) and more particularly on paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 which reads as under :— '10. The next question is whether the acquisition of such a capital asset is depreciable asset or not? Under section 32 depreciation allowance is, subject to the provisions of section 34, permissible only in respect of certain assets specified ther…

DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4372/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…to be a capital expenditure. In the case of CIT v. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 204 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that technical know how is a plant. Similar view was taken in the case of Scientific Engg. House (P) Ltd. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 86 (SC) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even in the case CIT v. Escorts Employees Maries Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 74 (P&H) and CIT v. Premier Automobiles Ltd. 19941 ITR 633 (Guj) and CIT v. Premier Automobiles Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 1Bom), Anup Engineering Ltd. v. Flee 4199320 Clt (1991) 192 ITR 633 (Guj), CIT v. ToshniwalMgg. Co. Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 209 (Bom)…

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4236/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…to be a capital expenditure. In the case of CIT v. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 204 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that technical know how is a plant. Similar view was taken in the case of Scientific Engg. House (P) Ltd. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 86 (SC) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even in the case CIT v. Escorts Employees Maries Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 74 (P&H) and CIT v. Premier Automobiles Ltd. 19941 ITR 633 (Guj) and CIT v. Premier Automobiles Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 1Bom), Anup Engineering Ltd. v. Flee 4199320 Clt (1991) 192 ITR 633 (Guj), CIT v. ToshniwalMgg. Co. Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 209 (Bom)…

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 308/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

…they cannot be considered as falling under the definition of "Plant". Mr. Pinto submitted that the decisions of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Drinks (P.) Ltd. and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sri 4 (1971) 82 ITR 44 (SC) 5 (1986) 157 ITR 86 (SC) 6 (2005) 274 ITR 11 (A.P.) Dinesh Sherla 6/14 203-itxa-252-02.doc Krishna Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. are considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Steel City Beverages Ltd., and it is held that the definition of IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 & M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 50 "Plant" will not include bottles and crates and therefor…

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 345/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

…they cannot be considered as falling under the definition of "Plant". Mr. Pinto submitted that the decisions of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Drinks (P.) Ltd. and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sri 4 (1971) 82 ITR 44 (SC) 5 (1986) 157 ITR 86 (SC) 6 (2005) 274 ITR 11 (A.P.) Dinesh Sherla 6/14 203-itxa-252-02.doc Krishna Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. are considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Steel City Beverages Ltd., and it is held that the definition of IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 & M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 50 "Plant" will not include bottles and crates and therefor…

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1903/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 92C

…l production of the formulation initially in the laboratory and therefore upto a batch size. In similar circumstances Hon‟ble 31 ITA 1903/Mum/2015 M/s Strides Arcolab Limited Supreme Court in the case of scientific Engineering House Pvt Limited vs CIT (1986) 157 ITR 86 (SC) held that the compilation of technical knowhow is an article to be considered as capital asset eligible for depreciation. Similarly, the Mumbai Tribunal also in the case of ISBC Consultancy Services Ltd. VS DCIT (2002) 88 ITD 134 (Mum) held that the customization of software amounted to manufacture and entitled to deduction under Section 10A…

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2532/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai for Shri K.R. VasudevanFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 37Section 92C

…they cannot be considered as falling under the definition of "Plant". Mr. Pinto submitted that the decisions of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Drinks (P.) Ltd. and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sri 4 (1971) 82 ITR 44 (SC) 5 (1986) 157 ITR 86 (SC) 6 (2005) 274 ITR 11 (A.P.) Dinesh Sherla 6/14 203-itxa-252-02.doc Krishna Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. are considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Steel City Beverages Ltd., and it is held that the definition of "Plant" will not include bottles and crates and therefore, this decision was rightly followed by the Tribunal. 11. The definition of "…

OUTOTEC (FINLAND) OY (NOW MERGED WITH "METSO MINERALS OY" AND THE MERGED ENTITY HAS BEEN RENAMED TO METSO OUTOTEC FINLAND OY),HARYANA vs. ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result,both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 351/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. HukughaSema, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 271A

…e Act and DTAA. Now we have to consider the Judgments dealing with the non-taxability of sale of designs and drawings outside India as cited by Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 157 ITR 86 dealing with the issue of whether the drawings, designs, charts, plants etc. constitute a plant and are entitled to depreciation, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the affirmative case on page no 97 of the report as under: "Obviously, the purpose of rendering such documentation service by supplying these documents to the assessee was to enable it to u…

OUTOTEC(FINLAND) OY (NOW MERGED WITH "METSO MINERALS OY" AND THE MERGED ENTITY HAS BEEN RENAMED TO METSO OUTOTEC FINLAND OY),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result,both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 350/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. HukughaSema, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 271A

…e Act and DTAA. Now we have to consider the Judgments dealing with the non-taxability of sale of designs and drawings outside India as cited by Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 157 ITR 86 dealing with the issue of whether the drawings, designs, charts, plants etc. constitute a plant and are entitled to depreciation, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the affirmative case on page no 97 of the report as under: "Obviously, the purpose of rendering such documentation service by supplying these documents to the assessee was to enable it to u…

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1285/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 80Section 92C

…y a businessman for carrying on his business. It is not confined to apparatus used for mechanical operations or processes or industrial business, Applying the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd.vs. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 86 (SC) to the facts in the instant case, it could be said that the fans installed in the administrative office of the assessee constituted plan and machinery for the purpose of granting depreciation u/s.32 of the Act, We also find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Delhi Air Port Service (2002) 255 ITR 91 (Del) has held that ai…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4999/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…hinery and it is to be categorized as a building and on the other hand, the ld. AR has placed reliance on the case of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corpn. 247 ITR 268 [SC], Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd Vs. CIT 157 ITR 86 [SC] and decision in the case of Victory ITA No. 3549 & 4847/Del/2009 CO No. 328/Del/2009 & 111/2010 Aqua Farm Ltd 61 Taxmann.com 166 [SC] and plethora of decision to support the case of the assessee that golf course is a plant and machinery and it is not a building. Interestingly, no cited decision relied by both the parties are related to golf c…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4998/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…hinery and it is to be categorized as a building and on the other hand, the ld. AR has placed reliance on the case of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corpn. 247 ITR 268 [SC], Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd Vs. CIT 157 ITR 86 [SC] and decision in the case of Victory ITA No. 3549 & 4847/Del/2009 CO No. 328/Del/2009 & 111/2010 Aqua Farm Ltd 61 Taxmann.com 166 [SC] and plethora of decision to support the case of the assessee that golf course is a plant and machinery and it is not a building. Interestingly, no cited decision relied by both the parties are related to golf c…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…hinery and it is to be categorized as a building and on the other hand, the ld. AR has placed reliance on the case of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corpn. 247 ITR 268 [SC], Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd Vs. CIT 157 ITR 86 [SC] and decision in the case of Victory ITA No. 3549 & 4847/Del/2009 CO No. 328/Del/2009 & 111/2010 Aqua Farm Ltd 61 Taxmann.com 166 [SC] and plethora of decision to support the case of the assessee that golf course is a plant and machinery and it is not a building. Interestingly, no cited decision relied by both the parties are related to golf c…

M/S LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…hinery and it is to be categorized as a building and on the other hand, the ld. AR has placed reliance on the case of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corpn. 247 ITR 268 [SC], Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd Vs. CIT 157 ITR 86 [SC] and decision in the case of Victory ITA No. 3549 & 4847/Del/2009 CO No. 328/Del/2009 & 111/2010 Aqua Farm Ltd 61 Taxmann.com 166 [SC] and plethora of decision to support the case of the assessee that golf course is a plant and machinery and it is not a building. Interestingly, no cited decision relied by both the parties are related to golf c…

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3