CIT v. L. And T. McNeil Ltd.

202 ITR 662High Court1993#13765 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. L. And T. McNeil Ltd.

HLL BIOTECH LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Stay Petitions filed

ITA 578/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…orin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). I.T.A. Nos. 576 to 578/Coch/2018 & S.P. Nos. 47-49/Coch/2018 7.8 For the above proposition, we are also supported by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. L. And T. McNeil Ltd. (202 ITR 662) had an occasion to examine this aspect and it was observed as under:- “Held, (i) that though the main business of the assessee was to undertake manufacturing activities, the plant and machinery was installed on June 10, 1974 long after the end of the relevant previous year and the actual manufacturing commenced only thereafter and the first or…

HLL BIOTECH LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Stay Petitions filed

ITA 577/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…orin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). I.T.A. Nos. 576 to 578/Coch/2018 & S.P. Nos. 47-49/Coch/2018 7.8 For the above proposition, we are also supported by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. L. And T. McNeil Ltd. (202 ITR 662) had an occasion to examine this aspect and it was observed as under:- “Held, (i) that though the main business of the assessee was to undertake manufacturing activities, the plant and machinery was installed on June 10, 1974 long after the end of the relevant previous year and the actual manufacturing commenced only thereafter and the first or…

HLL BIOTECH LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Stay Petitions filed

ITA 576/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…orin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). I.T.A. Nos. 576 to 578/Coch/2018 & S.P. Nos. 47-49/Coch/2018 7.8 For the above proposition, we are also supported by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. L. And T. McNeil Ltd. (202 ITR 662) had an occasion to examine this aspect and it was observed as under:- “Held, (i) that though the main business of the assessee was to undertake manufacturing activities, the plant and machinery was installed on June 10, 1974 long after the end of the relevant previous year and the actual manufacturing commenced only thereafter and the first or…

DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN REFRIGERATOR CO. LTD, AURANGABAD

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

ITA 941/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Arora & Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra KarkhanisFor Respondent: Shri T.A.Khan

…) depreciation. Idleness or temporary suspension from active user would not therefore disentitle a claim for depreciation. A review of the binding judicial precedents, toward which we have also perused the decision in the case of CIT v. L&T Mcneil Ltd. [1993] 202 ITR 662 (Bom), thus yields that user is a condition precedent for the claim of depreciation allowance. The same implies an actual user, and there is no legal fiction or deemed user, being principally a matter of fact. Ready-to-use state or passive user has been regarded as user in the peculiar facts of the case, where no distinction in fact could be draw…

INDIAN REGRIGERATOR COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3949/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Arora & Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra KarkhanisFor Respondent: Shri T.A.Khan

…) depreciation. Idleness or temporary suspension from active user would not therefore disentitle a claim for depreciation. A review of the binding judicial precedents, toward which we have also perused the decision in the case of CIT v. L&T Mcneil Ltd. [1993] 202 ITR 662 (Bom), thus yields that user is a condition precedent for the claim of depreciation allowance. The same implies an actual user, and there is no legal fiction or deemed user, being principally a matter of fact. Ready-to-use state or passive user has been regarded as user in the peculiar facts of the case, where no distinction in fact could be draw…

ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI vs. G SHOES EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6209/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5736/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) G. Shoes Exports Asst. Cit-25(1)/Cit City 25 बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, 1, Hitex Industrial Estate, S. V. Road, Dahisar (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Mumbai-400 068 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfg 5376 P (Assessee) : (Revenue) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6209/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बनाम/ Asst. Cit-25(1), G. Shoes Exports Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 068 Vs. (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Radheshyam Jain : Shri Airiju Jaikaran Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.06.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 16.7.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 20.3.2013. 2

For Appellant: Shri Radheshyam Jain
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “जी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5736/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) G. Shoes Exports Asst. CIT-25(1)/CIT City 25 बनाम/ 2nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, 1, Hitex Industrial Estate, S. V. Road, Dahisar (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Mumbai-400 068 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AACFG 5376 P (Assessee) : (Revenue) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6209/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बनाम/ Asst. CIT-25(1), G. Shoes Exports Mumbai-…

WONDERVALUE REALTY DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 5(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6059/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6059/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Wondervalue Realty Developers P. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3)(4), बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, 505, Ceejay House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 New Marine Lines, Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacw 8249 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Mandar Vaidya ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran
Section 143(3)Section 56

…deemed surplus for the time being and, accordingly, assessable as ‘income from other sources’ u/s. 56 of the Act. Reliance was placed by him on Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172 (SC) and CIT vs. L & T Mcneil Ltd. (1993) 202 ITR 662 (Bom). The claim qua administrative expenditure and depreciation was even otherwise inadmissible as the business had not been set up. The assessee’s case in this regard, made out with reference to the offer letter from MHADA, i.e., for redevelopment of property, was found not tenable as the same related to the previous year relevant to AY 2012-13…

CIT v. L. And T. McNeil Ltd. (202 ITR 662) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax