CIT v. Kikani Exports Pvt. Ltd.

369 ITR 500High Court#20738 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Kikani Exports Pvt. Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LIMITED, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 178/PAN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…ercise of option as required under second proviso to rule5(1A)- Held, yes - Whether, therefore, assessee was entitled to depreciation on windmills at a higher rate - Held, yes.” 12. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kikani Exports P. Ltd., 369 ITR 500 (Mad) has held:- “Held accordingly, dismissing the appeals, that if the assesses exercised the option in terms of the second proviso to rule 5(1A) at the time of furnishing of return, it will suffice and no separate letter or request or intimation with regard to of exercise of option is required. Since the returns were filed in accordance with s…

DCIT, PONDICHERRY vs. GRACE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3273/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Ms.J.Sree Vidya, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Sailendra Mammidi, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 68

…sessee’s claim for higher rate of depreciation at 80%. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. Kikani Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported in 369 ITR 500 wherein which has been held that the assessee is entitled to claim of depreciation on wind mills at 80% if the option is exercised in the return filed within the time limit prescribed under the second proviso to Rule 5(1A) of IT Rules. It was a submission by the Ld.AR that the assessee having filed return of income within the time provided u/…

DCIT, PONDICHERRY vs. GRACE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1899/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Ms.J.Sree Vidya, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Sailendra Mammidi, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 68

ITO, TIRUPPUR vs. M/S. SARAVANA RICE MILL, TIRUPPUR

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

ITA 2039/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2039/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, M/S Saravana Rice Mill, Ward – 2(2), V. No.2/790, Tirupur Main Road, Tirupur. Pongaigoundenpalayam, Palladam, Tirupur – 641 664. Pan : Aarfs 3907 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Kumar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 32

…he absence of any specific form prescribed under the Income-tax Act, the claim of depreciation in the audited statement would amount to exercising the option. 5. Referring to the judgement of Madras High Court in KKSK Leather Processors (P) Ltd. v. ITO in 369 ITR 500, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the absence of any prescribed procedure for exercising the option, the claim of the assessee in the return of income along with audit report would definitely amount to 4 I.T.A. No.2039/Mds/16 exercising the option. In the case before us, according to the Ld. counsel, there was a delay in fi…