How many judgments cite CIT v. Karnataka Power Corpn?

42 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Karnataka Power Corpn (157 ITR 86), spanning 2010 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Karnataka Power Corpn come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(4)(b), Section 234B, Section 35D, Section 37, Section 40(a)(i), Section 80-O.

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.

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 234B Section 35D Section 37 Section 40(a)(i)Section 80-O

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(3)section 43(3)section 10(5)section 14a(1)section 42 strategic investment section 80ia(4)section 115jb(2)section 35d colourable device written down value block of assets

Judgments citing CIT v. Karnataka Power Corpn

Shanti Bhushan vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITR-230/1994HC Delhi31 May 2011

For Appellant: Mr. S.K.PathakFor Respondent: Ms. Rashmi Chopra

Section 144Section 256(2)Section 31Section 37

…ue. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Gujarat Vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. 1987 166 ITR page 66 dismissed the appeal of the revenue in limine by relying on its own judgment in the case of Scientific Engineering House P Ltd. vs CIT (1986) 157 ITR 86. 20. This brings me to the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Scientific Engineering (supra). Briefly in this case, amongst others, one of the issues which the court was called upon to decide was whether technical know-how supplied by a foreign collaborator of the assessee company by way of what was 2011:DHC:3052-DB…

C.I.T vs. Denso India Ltd

ITA/16/2008HC Delhi08 Oct 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

…g to the word "plant", material record of know-how (even assuming that know-how itself is intangible) is clearly included within the meaning of the word "plant" in section 32.” 13. In the case of Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd. Vs. C.I.T (1986) 157 ITR 86 (SC), it was, inter alia, held as follows:- ITAs NO. 16 of 2008, 1011/2007,839/2010,840/2010,293/2010,107/2009 Page 13 of 19 “In other words the test would be: Does the article fulfil 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…