What is CIT v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. authority for?

Depreciation is allowable on assets that are kept "ready for use," not just those in "actual use." This interpretation applies to the term "use" in Section 32 of the Income Tax Act.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.?

17 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (89 Taxmann.com 186), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 244A, Section 36(1)(vii), Section 36(1)(viia), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 43B.

CIT v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (89 Taxmann.com 186)

Asst CIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI JAGADISH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 State Bank of India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Financial Reporting & Taxation Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Dept. Mumbai 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAACS8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. State Bank of India of Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Financial Reporting & Taxation Mumbai Dept. 3rd Floor, Corpor…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI JAGADISH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 State Bank of India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Financial Reporting & Taxation Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Dept. Mumbai 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAACS8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. State Bank of India of Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Financial Reporting & Taxation Mumbai Dept. 3rd Floor, Corpor…

Indus Towers Limited (Formerly Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd and As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Indus Tower Ltd), Gurugram, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

…integra in view of the decision of Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Piccadilly Agro Industries Limited reported in 311 ITR 24 (P&H) ; decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited vs PCIT reported in 403 ITR 248 (Bom). It is pertinent to note that the SLP preferred by the revenue against this decision was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court which is reported in 259 Taxman 79 (SC). 14.4. We find that the Hon‟ble Courts have already held that the term „use‟ as referred to in Section 32 of the Act is not restricted to „actual use‟, but also includes „passi…

ACIT, Circle 10, New Delhi vs. Indus Tower Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2212/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

…integra in view of the decision of Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Piccadilly Agro Industries Limited reported in 311 ITR 24 (P&H) ; decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited vs PCIT reported in 403 ITR 248 (Bom). It is pertinent to note that the SLP preferred by the revenue against this decision was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court which is reported in 259 Taxman 79 (SC). 14.4. We find that the Hon‟ble Courts have already held that the term „use‟ as referred to in Section 32 of the Act is not restricted to „actual use‟, but also includes „passi…

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1962/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

…integra in view of the decision of Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Piccadilly Agro Industries Limited reported in 311 ITR 24 (P&H) ; decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited vs PCIT reported in 403 ITR 248 (Bom). It is pertinent to note that the SLP preferred by the revenue against this decision was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court which is reported in 259 Taxman 79 (SC). 14.4. We find that the Hon‟ble Courts have already held that the term „use‟ as referred to in Section 32 of the Act is not restricted to „actual use‟, but also includes „passi…

ACIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. L & T Ltd ( Datar Switch Gear Ltd Merged ), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3806/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2004-05

Section 143(3)

…ance on the following case laws:- (a) CIT vs. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd (2009)(317 ITR 236)(Bom) (b) Multican Builders Ltd vs. CIT (2005)(278 ITR 142)(Cal) (c) Capital Bus Service (P) Ltd vs. CIT (123 ITR 404)(Delhi) (d) PCIT vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd (2018)(403 ITR 248)(Bom) Referring to the Cross objection, the Ld A.R submitted that the above said amount of Rs.43.42 crores should be allowed as “business loss”. 9 M/s. L&T Ltd. (Datar Switch Gear Ltd. merged) 18. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record. As per the agreement entered with MSEB, the assessee has agreed to lease out LTLMS capacitor…

Mr. Syed Mustafa Kamal Pasha, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 705/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Mr.Syed Mustafa Kamal Pasha, Deputy Commissioner No.3, 4Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Vs. Jayamahal Extension, Circle - 6(2)(1) Bangalore Bangalore Pan – Adcpk8497N Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Sri Sanketh Nayak, CA

Section 133(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Smt. Beena Pillai, JM Mr.Syed Mustafa Kamal Pasha, Deputy Commissioner No.3, 4th Main Road, of Income Tax, Vs. Jayamahal Extension, Circle - 6(2)(1) Bangalore Bangalore PAN – ADCPK8497N Appellant Respondent : Assessee by Sri Sanketh Nayak, CA Revenue by : Sri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 29-03-2022 : Date of Pronouncement 11-04-2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)- 11, Bengaluru, dated 22-09-2020 for the…

Mahindra Heavy Engines P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 605/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 605/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Mahindra Heavy Engines Pvt. Ltd. DCIT Circle 6(3) Vs. (Earlier Mahindra Navistar Aayakar Bhavan Engines Pvt. Ltd. and earlier to M.K. Road this MIM Engines India Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai - Mahindra Towers 400 020. P.K. Kurane Chowk Worli, Mumbai-400 018. PAN : AAFCM0476N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri R.D. Omkar & Shri Prasad Bapat Department by Shri Anand Mohan Date of Hearing 15.4.2019 Date of Pronouncement 31.5.2019 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM…

Indexone Tradecone Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 21/JPR/2018[2013-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Aug 2018AY 2013-13

For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)

…Del) : Plant and Machinery kept ready for use- use of asset in relevant accounting year-Meaning of word "use" Assets kept ready for use would amount to use. 10 Indexone Tradecone Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs DCIT, Jaipur (6) Pr. CIT Vs. Larsen And Toubro Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 248 (Boni): Condition precedent for allowance- user of plant and machinery. Machinery utilized for trial run. Depreciation allowable. It was submitted that when the vehicle was brought to assessee's place of business, the same is used or ready for use for business purposes. The disallowance of mandatory allowance of Depreciation was therefore nor wa…

DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. National Aluminium Company Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 339/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.339 & 340/Ctk/2016 Dcit, Corporate Circle1(2)/ Vs. National Aluminium Company Acit, Circle-2(2), Limited, Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.352 & 353/Ctk/2016 & Ita No.374/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11, 2012-13 & 2011-12) National Aluminium Company Vs. Jcit Range-2/ Limited, Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2) Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.01/Ctk/2015 & 25/Ctk/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.376/Ctk/14 & Ita No.340/Ctk/2016) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) National Aluminium Company Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2)/ Limited, Dcit, Corporate Circle- Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain/B.K.Mahapatra, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR

Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.339 & 340/CTK/2016 DCIT, Corporate Circle1(2)/ Vs. National Aluminium Company ACIT, Circle-2(2), Limited, Bhubaneswar NALCO Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAACN 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. AND आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.352 & 353/CTK/2016 & ITA No.374/CTK/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11, 2012-13 & 2011-12) National Aluminium Company Vs. JCIT Range-2/ Limited, AC…