CIT v. M/s.Cactus Imaging India Private Limited

406 ITR 406High Court2018#9266 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 250

Judgments citing CIT v. M/s.Cactus Imaging India Private Limited

CNB FINWIZ PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4460/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4460/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम M/S Cnb Finwiz Private Limited, Additional/Joint 302-303, Emca House 23/23B, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi. Tax (Appeal)-1/ Pan No.Aabcb2613A Acit, Circle 6(1), Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250

…the case of CIT vs Computer Age Management Services (P.) Ltd (supra). The Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- 11. “In the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in thecase of CIT Vs. M/s Cactus Imaging India Private Limited [reported in (2018) 406 ITR 406], to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party, an http://www.judis.nic.in identical question came up for consideration wherein the object was printer (computer printer). This Court, after taking into consideration as to how the entries would be interpreted, referred to the decision in the case of Bimetal Bearings Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [reported…

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 518/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ला, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 518, 505, 506 & 507/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Titan Company Ltd., 1. The Assistant (Erstwhile known as Titan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Industries Ltd.,) Circle III(2), #3, SIPCOT Indl. Complex, Chennai. Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. 2. The Joint / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer…

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 507/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ला, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 518, 505, 506 & 507/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Titan Company Ltd., 1. The Assistant (Erstwhile known as Titan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Industries Ltd.,) Circle III(2), #3, SIPCOT Indl. Complex, Chennai. Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. 2. The Joint / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer…

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 506/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ला, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 518, 505, 506 & 507/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Titan Company Ltd., 1. The Assistant (Erstwhile known as Titan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Industries Ltd.,) Circle III(2), #3, SIPCOT Indl. Complex, Chennai. Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. 2. The Joint / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer…

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 505/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ला, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 518, 505, 506 & 507/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Titan Company Ltd., 1. The Assistant (Erstwhile known as Titan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Industries Ltd.,) Circle III(2), #3, SIPCOT Indl. Complex, Chennai. Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. 2. The Joint / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer…

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), NEW DELHI vs. INDIAN MORTGAGE GUARANTEE CORPORATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5263/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit, Vs Indian Mortgage Guarantee Circle-12(1), Corporation Pvt.Ltd., A-47, Lower New Delhi. Ground Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110049. Pan-Aaccg6775B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Hiten Chande, Ca Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2021

…case of CIT vs Computer Age Management Services (P.) Ltd (supra). The Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- 11. “In the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Cactus Imaging India Private Limited [reported in (2018) 406 ITR 406], to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party, an http://www.judis.nic.in identical question came up for consideration wherein the object was printer (computer printer). This Court, after taking into consideration as to how the entries would be interpreted, referred to [Assessment Year : 2014-15] the decision in the case of Bimetal Bearings Ltd. Vs.…

ESENSE LEARNING P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4391/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Essence Learning Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – 6(2)(2) Navneet Bhavan, Bhavan Shankar Road Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400 028 Pan: Aaccn7509C

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh

…as argued that the computer projector is the part and parcel of the computer operating system, therefore, the assessee is eligible for depreciation @ 60% in view of the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Cactus Imaging India Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 406 ITR 406 (Mad). However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has strongly relied upon the order passed by CIT(A) in question. In the instant case, the claim of the assessee is in connection with the computer projector. The Computer projector cannot work alone without operating the computer system. It is integral part of the compute…

GOFRUGAL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3022/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3022/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Gofrugal Technologies Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, ‘Sree Narayana Complex’ Income Tax No.11, Sarathy Nagar, Vijaya Nagar, Corporate Circle 2(1) Velachery, Chennai – 600 042 Chennai – 600 034 [Pan: Aacca4341F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai Dated 01.08.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Restriction Of The Claim Of Depreciation On Computer Software To 25% As Against 60% Claimed By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…capitalized during the relevant years in the books of accounts and claimed depreciation at 60% and the Tribunal has held that the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation at 60%. By following the decision in the case of CIT v. Cactus Imaging India Pvt. Ltd. 406 ITR 406 (Mad) and also considering the decision in the case of Bimetal Bearings Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [reported in (1991) 80 STC 167], the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal. The ld. DR could not controvert the above :- 4 -: decision of the Hon’ble High Court by filing any higher court decision having modified or…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. LASER SOFT INFOSYSTEM PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1348/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. A. Sundararajan,IRS, Adl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Adv
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 1O

…to 1348/16 :- 9 -: considered view, rightly held that the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation at 60%. 11. In the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Cactus Imaging India Private Limited [reported in (2018) 406 ITR 406], to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party, an identical question came up for consideration wherein the object was printer (computer printer). This Court, after taking into consideration as to how the entries would be interpreted, referred to the decision in the case of Bimetal Bearings Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [reported in (1991) 80 STC 167] a…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. LASER SOFT INFOSYSTEM PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1347/CHNY/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. A. Sundararajan,IRS, Adl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Adv
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 1O

…to 1348/16 :- 9 -: considered view, rightly held that the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation at 60%. 11. In the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Cactus Imaging India Private Limited [reported in (2018) 406 ITR 406], to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party, an identical question came up for consideration wherein the object was printer (computer printer). This Court, after taking into consideration as to how the entries would be interpreted, referred to the decision in the case of Bimetal Bearings Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [reported in (1991) 80 STC 167] a…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. LASER SOFT INFOSYSTEM PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1346/CHNY/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. A. Sundararajan,IRS, Adl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Adv
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 1O

…to 1348/16 :- 9 -: considered view, rightly held that the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation at 60%. 11. In the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Cactus Imaging India Private Limited [reported in (2018) 406 ITR 406], to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party, an identical question came up for consideration wherein the object was printer (computer printer). This Court, after taking into consideration as to how the entries would be interpreted, referred to the decision in the case of Bimetal Bearings Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [reported in (1991) 80 STC 167] a…

ESENSE LEARNING P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 7055/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7055 /Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Essense Learning Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Acit-6(2)(2) Room No.504, 5Th Floor, Navneet Bhavan, Bhavani Vs. Shankar Road, Dadar (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Mumbai-400028. 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn7509C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjay Parikh Revenue By: Shri Sachchidanand Dube(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Ground No.1 Depreciation On Computer Projector Restricted To 15% (I) The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Facts & In Law, In Confirming The Depreciation On Computer Projector At A.Y.2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Sachchidanand Dube(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…as argued that the computer projector is the part and parcel of the computer operating system, therefore, the assessee is eligible for depreciation @ 60% in view of the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Cactus Imaging India Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 406 ITR 406 (Mad). However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has strongly relied upon the order passed by CIT(A) in question. In the instant case, the claim of the assessee is in connection with the computer projector. The Computer projector cannot work alone without operating the computer system. It is integral part of the compute…

CIT v. M/s.Cactus Imaging India Private Limited (406 ITR 406) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax