CIT v. Karnataka Power Corpn

157 ITR 86Supreme Court of India1986#2770 most cited

What is CIT v. Karnataka Power Corpn authority for?

A golf course is not considered plant and machinery for the purpose of depreciation and is instead classified as a building.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Karnataka Power Corpn · golf course · plant and machinery · building · depreciation · assessment

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

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 653/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4849/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. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 799/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…08 and 7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 3 (b) On merits, the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the binding ratio of the apex court's decision in the case of Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Limited. Vs CIT 157 ITR 86 (SC) and further failed to take note of the fact that, in allowing the expenditure in earlier years, undue reliance was placed on the formal recitals in the agreements with the associate concerns presenting the lump sum payment for acquisition of technical knowhow as periodical payment of fee for the use of the said knowhow and such presentation a…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nabros Pharma Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 788/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…08 and 7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 3 (b) On merits, the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the binding ratio of the apex court's decision in the case of Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Limited. Vs CIT 157 ITR 86 (SC) and further failed to take note of the fact that, in allowing the expenditure in earlier years, undue reliance was placed on the formal recitals in the agreements with the associate concerns presenting the lump sum payment for acquisition of technical knowhow as periodical payment of fee for the use of the said knowhow and such presentation a…

The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda vs. M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Vadodara

ITA 551/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…08 and 7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 3 (b) On merits, the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the binding ratio of the apex court's decision in the case of Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Limited. Vs CIT 157 ITR 86 (SC) and further failed to take note of the fact that, in allowing the expenditure in earlier years, undue reliance was placed on the formal recitals in the agreements with the associate concerns presenting the lump sum payment for acquisition of technical knowhow as periodical payment of fee for the use of the said knowhow and such presentation a…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(2), (Tpo), Baroda

ITA 2061/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…08 and 7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 3 (b) On merits, the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the binding ratio of the apex court's decision in the case of Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Limited. Vs CIT 157 ITR 86 (SC) and further failed to take note of the fact that, in allowing the expenditure in earlier years, undue reliance was placed on the formal recitals in the agreements with the associate concerns presenting the lump sum payment for acquisition of technical knowhow as periodical payment of fee for the use of the said knowhow and such presentation a…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 1197/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…08 and 7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 3 (b) On merits, the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the binding ratio of the apex court's decision in the case of Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Limited. Vs CIT 157 ITR 86 (SC) and further failed to take note of the fact that, in allowing the expenditure in earlier years, undue reliance was placed on the formal recitals in the agreements with the associate concerns presenting the lump sum payment for acquisition of technical knowhow as periodical payment of fee for the use of the said knowhow and such presentation a…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The CIT-I, Baroda

ITA 1453/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…08 and 7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 3 (b) On merits, the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the binding ratio of the apex court's decision in the case of Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Limited. Vs CIT 157 ITR 86 (SC) and further failed to take note of the fact that, in allowing the expenditure in earlier years, undue reliance was placed on the formal recitals in the agreements with the associate concerns presenting the lump sum payment for acquisition of technical knowhow as periodical payment of fee for the use of the said knowhow and such presentation a…

Strides Arcolab Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst Cir 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8614/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Strides Shasun Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Strides Income Tax Circle 10(3), Arcolab Limited) 201, Mumbai Vs. Devavrata, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aadcs8104P

For Appellant: Percy J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Jayant Kumar &
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 1O

…tion. In fact, creation of dossier entails the actual production of the formulation initially in the laboratory and therefore upto a batch size. In similar circumstances Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd 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 deduction 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 unde…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Venus Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result ground No. 9

ITA 2504/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Venus Industrial Corporation Pvt Circle-17(1), Room No. 221, Ltd, 2Nd Floor, Cr Building, New Delhi Flat No. 1, 2Nd Floor, Ram Pratap House, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan:Aaacv4691B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri KC Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…plant and machinery for the purposes of allowing development rebate. The law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has been again reiterated in another case by the Apex court in Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 86. In this case the lordship observed:- “That “plant” was not necessarily confined to an apparatus which was used for mechanical operations or was employed in mechanical or industrial business. But in order to quality as “plant”, the particular article had to have some degree of durability. The test to be applied was : Did the article fulfil the fun…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bengal Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1218/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.1218/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Cir – 11(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Bengal Beverages Pvt. Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 6, Alipore Park Road, Alipore, Kolkata – 700 027 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb5984E (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue/Department By : Shri R. P. Nag, Acit (Dr) सुनवाईक"तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Kolkata, In Appeal No. 502/Cit(A)-4/Circle-11/Kol/14- 15, Dated 06.07.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 08.03.2013. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals: “That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Disallowance Of Additional Depreciation Of Rs.90,56,200/- U/S 32(1) (Iia) Of The I.T.Act,1961, Relating To Visicooler Machine.”

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Nag, ACIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)

…ect which is used and stands incidental for the purpose of business or profession. In support of the above contention, the assessee submitted the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia in the matter of Scientific Engineering vs. CIT reported in [1986] 157 ITR 86 (SC).The Apex Court of lndia observed therein the aforesaid matter that "The intention of the legislature was to give the word "plant" a wide meaning.The Apex Court further held that the "the word "plant" was not necessarily confined to an apparatus which was used for mechanical operation or process or was employed in mechanical or industrial proc…

DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Outotec Gmbh, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

ITA 193/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N. C. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Outotec Gmbh Vs. D.C.I.T., International C/O Outotec India Private Ltd., Taxation-2(1), Kolkata 12Th Floor, South City Pinnacle, Plot- Aayakar Bhawan Xi, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091. Poorva,110 Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 8228 K (Appellant/Assessee) .. (Respondent/Department) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.193/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T., International Vs. Outotec Gmbh Taxation-2(1), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva,110 C/O Outotec India Private Ltd., Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 12Th Floor, South City Pinnacle, Plot-Xi, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 8228 K (Appellant/Department) .. (Respondent/Assessee) Department By : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr. Assessee By : Subhabrata Mukherjee, Ar & Soumyadip Roy Choudhury, Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2017

For Appellant: Subhabrata Mukherjee, AR &For Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 209Section 234ASection 234B

…e designs and drawings sold by the assessee tantamount to the use of a ‘copyrighted article’ rather than use of a ‘copyright’. The assessee also placed reliance upon various Judicial Pronouncements, namely of Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) [157 ITR 86], Modern Threads (India) Limited vs DCIT (Jaipur ITAT) [69 ITD 115], DIT vs Infrasoft Ltd. [39 Taxmann.com 88]. In support of its contention, the assessee had also relied upon certain clauses of contracts of supply of imported designs and drawings for Bhushan Power and Steel Plant – Pellet Plant]. However, the ld AO rejected the assessee`s submiss…

Outotec Gmbh, Kolkata vs. The DCIT, It - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

ITA 160/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N. C. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Outotec Gmbh Vs. D.C.I.T., International C/O Outotec India Private Ltd., Taxation-2(1), Kolkata 12Th Floor, South City Pinnacle, Plot- Aayakar Bhawan Xi, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091. Poorva,110 Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 8228 K (Appellant/Assessee) .. (Respondent/Department) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.193/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T., International Vs. Outotec Gmbh Taxation-2(1), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva,110 C/O Outotec India Private Ltd., Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 12Th Floor, South City Pinnacle, Plot-Xi, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 8228 K (Appellant/Department) .. (Respondent/Assessee) Department By : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr. Assessee By : Subhabrata Mukherjee, Ar & Soumyadip Roy Choudhury, Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2017

For Appellant: Subhabrata Mukherjee, AR &For Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 209Section 234ASection 234B

…e designs and drawings sold by the assessee tantamount to the use of a ‘copyrighted article’ rather than use of a ‘copyright’. The assessee also placed reliance upon various Judicial Pronouncements, namely of Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) [157 ITR 86], Modern Threads (India) Limited vs DCIT (Jaipur ITAT) [69 ITD 115], DIT vs Infrasoft Ltd. [39 Taxmann.com 88]. In support of its contention, the assessee had also relied upon certain clauses of contracts of supply of imported designs and drawings for Bhushan Power and Steel Plant – Pellet Plant]. However, the ld AO rejected the assessee`s submiss…

M/S J K Cement Works vs. The State of Karnataka

STRP/100001/2014HC Karnataka23 Mar 2017

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 63Section 65Section 65(1)

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY SALES TAX REVISION PETITION No.100001 OF 2014 Connected with SALES TAX REVISION PETITION No.100002 OF 2014 SALES TAX REVISION PETITION No.100003 OF 2014 BETWEEN: M/S J.K. CEMENT WORKS, NO. 529/1, SAI NAGAR, MUDDAPUR-587122, UNIT: J K CEMENT LTD., TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT (REPTD. BY ITS UNIT HEAD ANTRIKSHA KUMAR JAIN) ... PETITIONER [COMMON] (By SRI. V.R.DESAI, SRI.ATUL K ALUR, SRI.N.P.VIVEK MEHTA & SMT.J.TEJAVATHI, ADVOCAT…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Praveen V Doddanavar

ITA/100003/2014HC Karnataka20 Feb 2017

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 63Section 65Section 65(1)

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY SALES TAX REVISION PETITION No.100001 OF 2014 Connected with SALES TAX REVISION PETITION No.100002 OF 2014 SALES TAX REVISION PETITION No.100003 OF 2014 BETWEEN: M/S J.K. CEMENT WORKS, NO. 529/1, SAI NAGAR, MUDDAPUR-587122, UNIT: J K CEMENT LTD., TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT (REPTD. BY ITS UNIT HEAD ANTRIKSHA KUMAR JAIN) ... PETITIONER [COMMON] (By SRI. V.R.DESAI, SRI.ATUL K ALUR, SRI.N.P.VIVEK MEHTA & SMT.J.TEJAVATHI, ADVOCAT…

M/S Hero Honda Motors Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2148/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Honda Motors Ltd, Dcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Circle-12(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg0812J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. AK Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 9

…t. In this case, there was no provision for returning the drawings or documents. The said factum, it was observed would not be relevant in the rapidly evolving world of science and technology. The decision in Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 86 (SC) was distinguished, as in the said case the issue was whether the drawings and designs could be treated as "books" or "plant" under section 43(3) of the Act and, hence, depreciable. Thus, Scientific Engg. House (P.) Ltd. (supra) dealt with the issue, whether depreciation should be allowed on intangible property like know-how, etc. The Supreme…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, cross objections of the

ITA 4847/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ry and it is to be categorised 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 45 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 course. Therefore, facts…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, cross objections of the

ITA 3549/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ry and it is to be categorised 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 45 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 course. Therefore, facts…

The Bailhongal Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/100001/2014HC Karnataka16 Dec 2015

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

Section 63Section 65Section 65(1)

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY SALES TAX REVISION PETITION No.100001 OF 2014 Connected with SALES TAX REVISION PETITION No.100002 OF 2014 SALES TAX REVISION PETITION No.100003 OF 2014 BETWEEN: M/S J.K. CEMENT WORKS, NO. 529/1, SAI NAGAR, MUDDAPUR-587122, UNIT: J K CEMENT LTD., TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT (REPTD. BY ITS UNIT HEAD ANTRIKSHA KUMAR JAIN) ... PETITIONER [COMMON] (By SRI. V.R.DESAI, SRI.ATUL K ALUR, SRI.N.P.VIVEK MEHTA & SMT.J.TEJAVATHI, ADVOCAT…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Hero Honda Motors Limited

ITA/694/2011HC Delhi03 Feb 2015

…nt. In this case, there was no provision for returning the drawings or documents. The said factum, it was observed would not be relevant in the rapidly evolving world of science and technology. Decision in Scientific Engg. House (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 86 (SC) was distinguished, as in the said case the issue was whether the drawings and designs could be treated as “books” or “plant” under Section 43(3) of the Act and hence depreciable. Thus, Scientific Engg. House (P) Ltd (supra) dealt with the issue, whether depreciation should be allowed on intangible property like knowhow etc. The Supreme…