CIT v. Lucas-TVS Limited

110 ITR 346High Court1977#18788 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 1992 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Lucas-TVS Limited

M/S.WATERLINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result ITA No. 1689/Bang/2016 is allowed

ITA 1689/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT, Shri. Sankar Ganesh K
Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s. Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 10th Floor, Gamma Block, Sigma Soft Circle – 7(1)(2), Tech Park, No.7, Airport Varthur Bengaluru. Road, Whitefield, Bengaluru– 560 066. PAN : AAACW 8059 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT, Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DRs)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 09.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20.09.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasud…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAMTEX FASHIONS LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2810/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2810/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Addl. Cit, Vs Samtex Fashions Ltd., Range -7, G- 321, Chirag Delhi New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcs3233M

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR
Section 32Section 68

…t will be the cost of the asset provided it has been incurred upto the date of installation of the asset. However, it is also clear that there should a direct nexus between expenditure and putting up of the asset. 13. In the case of CIT Vs. Lucas-TVS Limited 110 ITR 346, one of the questions before the court was – whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the sum of ‘AA' representing indirect expenditure on salaries, rent, lighting, etc. and allocated to various assets formed part of the capital asset for the eligibility of depreciation allowance and in relation to…

M/S. SAMTEX FASHIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2556/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2810/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Addl. Cit, Vs Samtex Fashions Ltd., Range -7, G- 321, Chirag Delhi New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcs3233M

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR
Section 32Section 68

…t will be the cost of the asset provided it has been incurred upto the date of installation of the asset. However, it is also clear that there should a direct nexus between expenditure and putting up of the asset. 13. In the case of CIT Vs. Lucas-TVS Limited 110 ITR 346, one of the questions before the court was – whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the sum of ‘AA' representing indirect expenditure on salaries, rent, lighting, etc. and allocated to various assets formed part of the capital asset for the eligibility of depreciation allowance and in relation to…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

C.A. No.-002916-002916 - 1980Supreme Court29 Apr 1992
For Respondent: GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LTD
Section 256(1)Section 256(2)Section 32

…ers Ltd., [1985] 156 ITR 283, (A.R.) over- 1021 ruled; C.I.T. v. Sanavik Asia Ltd., [1983] 144 ITR 585 (BOM.); C.I.T. v. Clour Chem Ltd., [1977] 106 ITR 323; C.I.T. v. Lucas-TVS Ltd., [1977] 110 ITR 346 (Mad.); Panyem Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Addl C.I.T., [1979] 117 ITR 770 (A.P.); C.I.T. v. Kalyani Spinning Mills Ltd., [1981] 128 ITR 279 (Cal.); C.I.T. v. Mec. Gaw Laboratories India (Ltd.), [1981] 132 ITR 401 (Guj.); C.I.T. v. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd., (150 ITR 23,) approved. 12. An interpretation consistently given ov…

CIT v. Lucas-TVS Limited (110 ITR 346) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax