CIT v. Mahendra Mills

243 ITR 56Supreme Court of India2000#1630 most cited

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.

69

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Mahendra Mills · 243 ITR 56 SC · Section 32 · Section 34 · Income Tax Act 1961 · depreciation allowed · actually allowed depreciation · notionally allowed depreciation

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 153ASection 139(5)Section 32Section 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 153(a)(1)section 11bsection 10b(8)section 2(24)(xviii)section 2(45)convertible foreign exchangesection 153(a)section 158bb(1)section 153a(1)(a)section 139(5)section 153a proceedingssection 10b

Judgments citing CIT v. Mahendra Mills

Addl CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4361/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…ef facts giving rise to the above ground of appeal are that the assessee had not claimed depreciation in earlier years on various plants /units on the ground that depreciation was optional as per decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Mahendra Mills (2000) 243 ITR 56 (SC). AO allowed depreciation relating to those plants/units to the assessee in earlier years and accordingly reduced written down value (WDV) of the said plants/units. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee claimed depreciation on the said plants/units in view of amendment made of granting of depreciation compulsory in terms…

Fibres & Fabrics International Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 918/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 32(1)(ii)

…or exhausted. In support of this proposition, he relied on the Mumbai coordinate Bench decision in the case of Godrej Agrovet Ltd. v. ACIT, ITA No.1629/Mum/2009. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mahindra Mills, 243 ITR 56 (SC). He further submitted that w.e.f. 1.4.2002, the AO was duty bound to allow depreciation even without the claim from the appellant as per law. 13. On merits, the ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue whether goodwill is eligible for depreciation is no longer res integra in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in…

M/S. Indian Seamless Steels & Alloys Ltd vs. The Jt CIT S.R.19

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2214/MUM/2005[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 28Section 29Section 30Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43D

…t was submitted by the assessee that depreciation is to be claimed at the option of the assessee and cannot be thrust upon it. In support of such contention, assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Mahendra Mills Ltd., [2000] 243 ITR 56 (SC). However, in response to the query raised by the Assessing Officer, assessee furnished the details of depreciation allowable under the Act. The Assessing Officer, after verifying the factual details observed, the assessee returned the loss of ` 18,81,57,930, before claiming depreciation under section 32 of the Act. He further noticed, the ass…

CIT vs. Dharampal Satyapal

ITA/1003/2011HC Delhi06 Jan 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr Raghvendra Kumar Singh, Junior StandingFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms Kavita Jha
Section 260ASection 43Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B

…(SC) in support of its contention that the written down value of the assets would be the actual cost of the assets as reduced by the depreciation actually allowed. He further referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mahendra Mills: (2000) 243 ITR 56 (SC) and contended that depreciation was an allowance available to the Assessee and it was not necessary for the Assessee to avail of the same. He also relied to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax: (2015) 374 ITR 619 (SC) in which the Supreme Court had noted the deci…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Sattenapalli

ITTA/377/2012HC Telangana06 Nov 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Dabur India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/1107/2007HC Delhi01 Sept 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Respondent: Mr R. D.Jolly
Section 260ASection 34(1)Section 80

…ongst others, raised the following grounds, which are, also in issue before us:- “1.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to recomputed deduction under section 80-IB in view of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s order in the case of CIT Vs. Mahindra Mill, 243 ITR 56 ignoring the facts that the said decision of the Apex Court pertains to A.Y. 1974-75 and since then the law has changed by omission of section 34(1). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to recomputed deduction u/s 80-HHC by withdrawing depreciation in view of the Hon‟ble Supreme…

Dabur India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA - 1107 / 2007HC Delhi01 Sept 2008
For Respondent: Mr R. D.Jolly
Section 260ASection 34(1)Section 80

…ongst others, raised the following grounds, which are, also in issue before us:- “1.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to recomputed deduction under section 80-IB in view of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s order in the case of CIT Vs. Mahindra Mill, 243 ITR 56 ignoring the facts that the said decision of the Apex Court pertains to A.Y. 1974-75 and since then the law has changed by omission of section 34(1). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to recomputed deduction u/s 80-HHC by withdrawing depreciation in view of the Hon‟ble Supreme…

Dabur India Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/579/2007HC Delhi01 Sept 2008

Bench: We Consider The Submissions Made In Support Of The Appeal The Following Facts Require To Be Noted:- 2.1 The Assessee Is In The Business Of Manufacturing Herbal Products & Cosmetics. On 30.11.2000 Assessee Filed Its Return For Assessment Year 2000-01 Wherein, It Declared An Income Of Rs 12,15,25,093/-. On 10.5.2001 The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Act As The Returned Income. However, Notices Were Issued Under Section 143(2) Of The Act. 2.2 In Response To The Aforesaid Notices, Hearing Was Attended By An Authorized Representative Before The Assessing Officer. 2008:Dhc:2521

For Respondent: Mr R. D.Jolly
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 32Section 34Section 80Section 80I

…ducting depreciation while arriving at eligible profits and gains in terms of the said section. 2.4 The Assessing Officer after a detailed discussion, and specially, after noticing the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills Ltd., 243 ITR 56 came to the conclusion that depreciation is a statutory allowance and even if the Assessee has not furnished the particulars, it is open to 2008:DHC:2521 ITA No. 579-07 Page 4 of 25 the Assessing Officer to grant depreciation. The Assessing Officer pointedly referred to distinguishing features obtaining in Mahindra Mills Ltd. (s…

Jt. Commnr. of Income Tax, Gujarat vs. United Phosphorous Ltd., Gujarat

Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to cost

C.A. No.-001183-001183 - 2008Supreme Court08 Feb 2008
For Respondent: M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd
Section 260ASection 32(1)Section 34(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…Health Care Ltd. in Civil Appeal Nos.3952-55 of 2002. 5. Regarding the question No.(2), quoted above, it may be noted that the High Court has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahendra Mills & Anr. \026 (2000) 243 ITR 56 in which it has been held that the assessee has an option to claim depreciation. However, Section 34(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "1961 Act") has been omitted w.e.f. 1.4.88. Therefore, we are remanding the matter to the High Court after setting aside the impugned order of the High Court on this question, with the direction to…