What is CIT v. Mahendra Mills authority for?

Depreciation that is actually allowed as a deduction is considered, not notionally allowed depreciation. The wording of Sections 32 and 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is specific and unambiguous.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Mahendra Mills?

69 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56), spanning 2008 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Mahendra Mills come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 143(3), Section 139(1), Section 147, Section 153A, Section 139(5).

CIT v. Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56)

Shri Subhash Chand Agarwal, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-2, Kota

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 336/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. B. V. Maheshwari (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

Section 139(4)Section 80C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘A’ JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 336/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2012-13 cuke Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal, ITO, Vs. C/o B Vishal & Co. Ward-1(2), “Raghukul”, 15, UIT Plots Kota B/H, Gumanpura Police Station, Jhalawar Road, Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AATPA6866D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. B. V. Mahesh…

M/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd vs. Addlcit RG - 7(1)

ITA 6141/MUM/2003[2000 01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Income - Tax Range-7(1), (Earlier Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013 Pan – Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) D.C.I.T, Circle-7 (1), M/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. 452, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Mumbai. 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Senior advocateFor Respondent: Shri Ronak Doshi, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 44A

…en over on amalgamation of Piramal Holding Ltd. and M/s Boehringer Mannheim India Ltd. (BMIL), ignoring the omission of the provisions of Section 34 (1) of the Act w.e.f 1.4.1988 relying on the Supreme court judgement in the case of Mahindra Mills reported in 243 ITR 56 which pertains to the period prior to the omission of the section. 2. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting disallowance of expenditure on closure of Thane Factory of Rs.28,92,000/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ,deleting the disallo…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lavasa Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3491/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…td. vs. CIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC). Therefore where the assessee does not claim any exemption of income, there is no need for invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act. The Ld. A.R. also relied on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra Mills 243 ITR 56 SC wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a privilege granted by the Act can not become a disadvantage as in that case the assessee was permitted to disclaim depreciation since that was more beneficial to the assessee. The Ld. A.R. also drew the attention of the bench to the assessment orders passed by the AO in assessee’s own…

The DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal vs. M/S. Indore Education and Service Society, Indore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 63/IND/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 20

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCHE, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT(Exemption), Indore Education and Bhopal Service Society, बनाम/ 04, Sita Building, Y.N. Road, Vs. Indore (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.AAATI3186K Appellant by Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. DR Respondent by Shri Sudheer Padliya, CA Date of Hearing: 07.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 15.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of In…

Vedanta Ltd (Successor to Cairn India Ltd), Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-26(1), New Delhi

ITA 6937/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Mishra, Senior DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 144CSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 928(1)

…is legally sustainable. However, we find that the on the facts and in the 21 circumstances of the case, the assessee does not deserve any relief on this score. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahendra Mills (2000) 243 ITR 56 (SC), has held that “if an assessee does not claim the depreciation and does not furnish particulars for claiming depreciation, as prescribed, depreciation cannot thrust upon him.” To remedy the situation flowing from such judgment, the Legislature brought in Explanation 5 to section 32(1)(ii) through the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01.04.2002. The E…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1547/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 43B

…ars prior to AY 2002-03, did not claim depreciation on certain assets on the plea that the depreciation claim is optional in nature. In this regard, the assessee took support of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra Mills Ltd (243 ITR 56), wherein it was held that the claim of depreciation is optional in nature. The depreciation claim was made mandatory w.e.f. 1.4.2002 as per Explanation 5 inserted in sec. 32(1) of the Act. Hence the assessee started claiming depreciation on the original Cost of assets w.e.f. AY 2002-03. However, the AO took the view that the depreciation is allow…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7241/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…ribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2004-05 (ITA No. 6835/Mum/2008), AY 2006-07 (ITA No. 1240/M/2010), AY 2007-08 (ITA No. 3588/M/2013), AY 2008-09 (ITA No. 4448/M/2013 and 4436/M/2013). Also reliance is placed on the decision in CIT v. Mahindra Mills Ltd. (243 ITR 56) (SC). 59. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. It would be relevant to refer here to the order of the ITAT ‘F’ Bench Mumbai in assessee’s own case for AY 2004-05 (ITA No. 6835/Mum/2008). The Tribunal vide order dated 23.11.2016 (para 17- 19) held: “17. Insofar as Ground of appeal no. 4 is concerned, th…

Magnalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(2)

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7133/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…ribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2004-05 (ITA No. 6835/Mum/2008), AY 2006-07 (ITA No. 1240/M/2010), AY 2007-08 (ITA No. 3588/M/2013), AY 2008-09 (ITA No. 4448/M/2013 and 4436/M/2013). Also reliance is placed on the decision in CIT v. Mahindra Mills Ltd. (243 ITR 56) (SC). 59. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. It would be relevant to refer here to the order of the ITAT ‘F’ Bench Mumbai in assessee’s own case for AY 2004-05 (ITA No. 6835/Mum/2008). The Tribunal vide order dated 23.11.2016 (para 17- 19) held: “17. Insofar as Ground of appeal no. 4 is concerned, th…

Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4448/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4448/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mangalore Refinery & Addl Cit 3(2) Petrochemicals Ltd. Mumbai बिधम/ 15Th Floor, Maker Tower, E- Vs. Wing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm5132A & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4436/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2008-09) Dcit-3(2) Mangalore Refinery & Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. बिधम/ 15Th Floor, Maker Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Tower, E-Wing, Cuffe Vs. Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm5132A अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Madhur Agrawal /Ronak Desai प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Samuel Darse सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08/06/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd.

For Appellant: Sh. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Sh. Samuel Darse

Section 115JSection 14ASection 40Section 44Section 44B

…ion of the decision is as follows: Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. "Brief facts of the matter are that the appellant had not claimed depreciation in the A. Yrs. 1998- 99, 1999-00, 2000-01 and 2001-02 in view of the decision of CIT Vs. Mahindra Mills 243 ITR 56 (S. C.). However for the A. Yr.2001 -02, the A. 0. allowed the depreciation though the same was not claimed by the assessee. Keeping in view the allowance of depreciation allowed in the A. Yr.2001 -02, the A. 0. restricted the depreciation to Rs.2, 46,97,36,332/- as against Rs.2, 68,13,08,076/- claimed by the assessee. At the time of hearing of t…

Shri T.N. Rajamohan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2540/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…ion benefit u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act and such tax exemption/deduction was not claimed in the return of income. The assessee supported the claim in the appellate proceedings based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra Mills reported in 243 ITR 56 pleaded for granting the said deduction with a view to arrive at the correct income for taxation. The Bench after referring to the Supreme Court decision noticed that the interest income was not offered for taxation while as a consequence the claim was not made in the return of income. The Bench even in such circumstances granted the benefit of t…