CIT v. KJS India Private Limited

340 ITR 380High Court#12658 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2017.

Judgments citing CIT v. KJS India Private Limited

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Modipon Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3337/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.P.Tolani, Hon’Ble & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Modipon Ltd, Ward-5(4), Hapur Road, Modi Nagar, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan:Aaacm2069E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Santosh Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 37(1)

…ing and therefore assessee is in appeal before us on this ground. 8. Before us Ld. AR of the assessee said that the claim is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act and he relied up on following decision of various courts. a. CIT V KJS India Private Limited 340 ITR 380 ( Delhi) b. CIT V Bhor Industries Limited 264 ITR 180 ( Bom) c. CIT V orient papers and Industries Limited 372 ITR 680 ( cal) d. CIT V Simpson & co Limited 230 ITR 703 e. CIT V Swan Mills Limited 39 Taxmann.com 112 ( Bom) 9. Ld DR relied on the order of AO as well as CIT (A) and submitted that claim is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act as it is…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the CO filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 5394/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shjogindersingh & Rajendraआयकर अपील सं./Ita/5394/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-8 6 B&C, Bhaktawar , Nariman Point Old, Cgo Complex 8Th Floor Vs. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaacj 1000 A. आयकर अपील सं./Ita/5495/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Cit, Central Circle-8 Vs. M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 021. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ""या"ेप संसंसंसं./ C.O. No.242/Mum/2014 ""या"ेप ""या"ेप ""या"ेप आयकर अपील सं./Arising Out Of Ita/5495/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Vs. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-8 M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Revenue By: Shri Ashish Heliwal Assessee By: Shri Ashok Mehta सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 10.6.2013,Of Cit(A)-37 Mumbai The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assessee Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections.During The Course Of Hearing Before Us,The Ar Stated That The Assessee Was Not Interested In Pursuing The C.O. Filed By It.Hence,Same Stands Dismissed As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal
Section 254(1)Section 80I

…sets of the said closed unit amounts to use for the purpose of business in the year under consideration. It was, therefore, held that assessee is entitled for depreciation. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of KJS India Pvt. Ltd. 340 ITR 380, and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd. 233 CTR 521. Respectfully following these decisions, we do not find any ground/reason for declining the assessee’s claim for depreciation in respect of assets forming part of block of asset. AO is, therefore, directed to allow the assessee’s claim.” Respectfully following the above,…

M/S. Modipon Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4155/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiin Ita No. 4155 & 4178/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Sh. Santosh Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P.Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

…ng and therefore assessee is in appeal before us on this ground. 8. Before us Ld. AR of the assessee said that the claim is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act and he relied up on following decision of various courts. a. CIT V KJS India Private Limited 340 ITR 380 ( Delhi) b. CIT V Bhor Industries Limited 264 ITR 180 ( Bom) c. CIT V orient papers and Industries Limited 372 ITR 680 ( cal) d. CIT V Simpson & co Limited 230 ITR 703 e. CIT V Swan Mills Limited 39 Taxmann.com 112 ( Bom) 9. Ld DR relied on the order of AO as well as CIT (A) and submitted that claim is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act as it is…

ACIT CC-8, Mumbai vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 376/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…sets of the said closed unit amounts to use for the purpose of business in the year under consideration. It was, therefore, held that assessee is entitled for depreciation. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of KJS India Pvt. Ltd. 340 ITR 380, and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd. 233 CTR 521. Respectfully following these decisions, we do not find any ground/reason for declining the assessee’s claim for depreciation in respect of assets forming part of block of asset. AO is, therefore, directed to allow the assessee’s claim. 15. In ITA No. 4752/Mum/2012 for…

ACIT CC.8, Mumbai vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3885/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…sets of the said closed unit amounts to use for the purpose of business in the year under consideration. It was, therefore, held that assessee is entitled for depreciation. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of KJS India Pvt. Ltd. 340 ITR 380, and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd. 233 CTR 521. Respectfully following these decisions, we do not find any ground/reason for declining the assessee’s claim for depreciation in respect of assets forming part of block of asset. AO is, therefore, directed to allow the assessee’s claim. 15. In ITA No. 4752/Mum/2012 for…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3818/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…sets of the said closed unit amounts to use for the purpose of business in the year under consideration. It was, therefore, held that assessee is entitled for depreciation. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of KJS India Pvt. Ltd. 340 ITR 380, and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd. 233 CTR 521. Respectfully following these decisions, we do not find any ground/reason for declining the assessee’s claim for depreciation in respect of assets forming part of block of asset. AO is, therefore, directed to allow the assessee’s claim. 15. In ITA No. 4752/Mum/2012 for…

ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai vs. M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4342/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…sets of the said closed unit amounts to use for the purpose of business in the year under consideration. It was, therefore, held that assessee is entitled for depreciation. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of KJS India Pvt. Ltd. 340 ITR 380, and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd. 233 CTR 521. Respectfully following these decisions, we do not find any ground/reason for declining the assessee’s claim for depreciation in respect of assets forming part of block of asset. AO is, therefore, directed to allow the assessee’s claim. 15. In ITA No. 4752/Mum/2012 for…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. M/S. ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2592/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…sets of the said closed unit amounts to use for the purpose of business in the year under consideration. It was, therefore, held that assessee is entitled for depreciation. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of KJS India Pvt. Ltd. 340 ITR 380, and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd. 233 CTR 521. Respectfully following these decisions, we do not find any ground/reason for declining the assessee’s claim for depreciation in respect of assets forming part of block of asset. AO is, therefore, directed to allow the assessee’s claim. 15. In ITA No. 4752/Mum/2012 for…

CIT v. KJS India Private Limited (340 ITR 380) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax