CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali (256 ITR 357)

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, LKO, LUCKNOW vs. ACP TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 131/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Section 143(2)Section 32

…{ "clean_text": "I.T.A. No.131/Lkw/2024\nC.O.No.14/Lkw/2024\n1\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nLUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW\nBEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nI.T.A. No.131/Lkw/2024\n Assessment year:2021-22\nJCIT (OSD),\nC.C.-1, Lucknow\n(Appellant)\nVs. ACP Tollways Private Limited,\nB-9, Vibhuti Khand,\nGomti Nagar, Lucknow.\nPAN:AAKCA0630M\n(Respondent)\nC.O.No.14/Lkw/2024\n(in I.T.A. No.131/Lkw/2024)\n Assessment year:2021-22\nACP Tollways Private Limited,\nB-9, Vibhuti Khand,\nGomti Nagar, Lucknow.\nPAN:AAKCA0630M\n(Appellant)\nVs. JCIT (…

MUKESH TRENDS LIFESTYLE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 828/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 828/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18)

For Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…r. It is, therefore, held to be entitled for depreciation on the car. It has drawn the support from the decision of ITO vs. Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd.B (supra) and the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT (Appeals) vs. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali (no.2),[2002] 256 ITR 357(Raj.) and the decision in the case of CIT vs. Basti Sugar Mills Co.Ltd. [2002] 257 ITR 88(Delhi). 17. The Tribunal has rightly distinguished the concept of dominion ownership of the car. The question raised is answered accordingly.” 10. In fact, in the case in hand before us, it is also not a disputed fact that the purchase of a car was made by…

M/S SUNSHINE COMMUNICATION PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1294/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Sunshine Communication Asst. Cit, Central Circle-5(4), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Air 1St Floor, Capri, Anant Kanekar Vs. India Building, Nariman Point, Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadcs 4276 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nimesh Thar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chetan M. Kacha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chetan M. Kacha, DR

Section 143(3)

…lectro Ferro Alloys Ltd. (supra) and the decision decision of Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali [2001] 118 Taxman 712/[2002] 256 ITR 357 and the [2001] 118 Taxman 712/[2002] 256 ITR 357 and the decision in the case of CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. [2002] decision in the case of CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 693/257 ITR88 (Delhi). 17. The Tribunal has ITR88 (Delhi). 17. The Tribunal has rightly distinguished the concept of dominion ownership of rightly dis…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ASHOKA DHANKUNI KHARAGPUR TOLLWAY LIMITED,, NASHIK

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 143/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.143/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Ashoka Dhankuni Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs Kharagpur Tollway Ltd., Nashik. . S No 861, Ashoka House, Ashoka Marg, Vadala, Nashik. Pan: Aajca 2569 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri B Koteswra Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune- 12’S Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1031080551(1) Dated 28.02.2021, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ पुणे म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No.143/PUN/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s.Ashoka Dhankuni Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs Kharagpur Tollway Ltd., Nashik. . S No 861, Ashoka House, Ashoka Marg, Vadala, Nashik. PAN: AAJCA 2569 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri B Koteswra Rao – DR Date of hearing 08/09/2022 Date of pronouncement 27/09/2022 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM:…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ASHOKA DHANKUNI KHARAGPUR TOLLWAY LIMITED,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 157/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.157/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.157/PUN/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 1, Nashik .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/s. M/s. Ashoka Dhankuni Kharagpur Tollway Ltd., S.No.861, Ashoka House, Ashoka Marg, Wadala, Nashik – 422011 PAN: AAJCA2569C ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.187 & 188/PUN/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ASHOKA BELGAUM DHARWARD TOLLWAY LTD,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 188/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.157/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.157/PUN/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 1, Nashik .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/s. M/s. Ashoka Dhankuni Kharagpur Tollway Ltd., S.No.861, Ashoka House, Ashoka Marg, Wadala, Nashik – 422011 PAN: AAJCA2569C ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.187 & 188/PUN/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ASHOKA BELGAUM DHARWARD TOLLWAY LTD,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 187/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.157/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.157/PUN/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 1, Nashik .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/s. M/s. Ashoka Dhankuni Kharagpur Tollway Ltd., S.No.861, Ashoka House, Ashoka Marg, Wadala, Nashik – 422011 PAN: AAJCA2569C ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.187 & 188/PUN/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1…

SUNSHINE COMMUNICTION P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, he appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 2745/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadales Rifaur M/S Sunshine Vs. Acit, Cc-5(4), Communication Pvt Ltd, Parimal Chambers, Thar & Co, 203, Capri Lalbaug, Bldg, Opp Hdil Towers Mumbai-400012. Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs4276L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nimesh Thar.Ar Respondent By : Shri S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Thar.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Anbuselvam.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 43B

…owner. It is, therefore, held to be entitled for depreciation on the car. It has drawn the support from the decision of Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali [2001] 118 Taxman 712/[2002] 256 ITR 357 and the decision in the case of CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 693/257 ITR88 (Delhi). 17. The Tribunal has rightly distinguished the concept of dominion ownership of the car. The question raised is answered accordingly. 20.8 Thus we are of the view that there cannot be any disallowance on adhoc basis as far as depreciation i…

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 187/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R

Section 40ASection 68

…owner. It is, therefore, held to be entitled for depreciation on the car. It has drawn the support from the decision of Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali [2001] 118 Taxman 712/[2002] 256 ITR 357 and the decision in the case of CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 693/257 ITR88 (Delhi). 17. The Tribunal has rightly distinguished the concept of dominion ownership of the car. The question raised is answered accordingly. 20.8 Thus we are of the view that there cannot be any disallowance on adhoc basis as far as depreciation i…

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2557/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R

Section 40ASection 68

…owner. It is, therefore, held to be entitled for depreciation on the car. It has drawn the support from the decision of Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali [2001] 118 Taxman 712/[2002] 256 ITR 357 and the decision in the case of CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 693/257 ITR88 (Delhi). 17. The Tribunal has rightly distinguished the concept of dominion ownership of the car. The question raised is answered accordingly. 20.8 Thus we are of the view that there cannot be any disallowance on adhoc basis as far as depreciation i…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1447/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R

Section 40ASection 68

…owner. It is, therefore, held to be entitled for depreciation on the car. It has drawn the support from the decision of Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali [2001] 118 Taxman 712/[2002] 256 ITR 357 and the decision in the case of CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 693/257 ITR88 (Delhi). 17. The Tribunal has rightly distinguished the concept of dominion ownership of the car. The question raised is answered accordingly. 20.8 Thus we are of the view that there cannot be any disallowance on adhoc basis as far as depreciation i…

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1320/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R

Section 40ASection 68

…owner. It is, therefore, held to be entitled for depreciation on the car. It has drawn the support from the decision of Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali [2001] 118 Taxman 712/[2002] 256 ITR 357 and the decision in the case of CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 693/257 ITR88 (Delhi). 17. The Tribunal has rightly distinguished the concept of dominion ownership of the car. The question raised is answered accordingly. 20.8 Thus we are of the view that there cannot be any disallowance on adhoc basis as far as depreciation i…

SAGAR POWERTEX PVT. LTD. (EARLIER SAGAR AGENCIES PVT.LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 304/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.304/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Sagar Powertex Pvt. Ltd., J.C.I.T., (Earlier Sagar Agencies Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Range-8, 803, Sahajanand Complex, Ahmedabad. Shahibaug Road, Shahiibaug Ahmedabad-380004. Pan: Aadcs0473P

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R

Section 14ASection 40Section 80Section 80I

…le was incurred by the assessee, the assessee is de facto owner of the vehicle. It is not disputed that it was used for the purpose of business of the assessee company. The hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali (No. 2) [2002] 256 ITR 357 (Raj) held that where vehicle was purchased by the firm used by it for the purpose of its business but it was registered in the name of one of the partners then the firm would be entitled to depreciation on vehicle. The hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. [2002] 257 ITR 88 (Delhi) held that where vehicle was…

ASIAN MILLS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1,,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1397/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1397/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T., 104, Sakar Iii, Vs. Range-1, Opp. Old High Court, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aabca8236G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1531/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T., Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 104, Sakar Iii, Ahmedabad. Opp. Old High Court, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aabca8236G

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R

Section 194Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40Section 6Section 7

…le was incurred by the assessee, the assessee is de facto owner of the vehicle. It is not disputed that it was used for the purpose of business of the assessee company. The hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali (No. 2) [2002] 256 ITR 357 (Raj) held that where vehicle was purchased by the firm used by it for the purpose of its business but it was registered in the name of one of the partners then the firm would be entitled to depreciation on vehicle. The hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. [2002] 257 ITR 88 (Delhi) held that where vehicle was…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 446/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

…le was incurred by the assessee, the assessee is de facto owner of the vehicle. It is not disputed that it was used for the purpose of business of the assessee company. The hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali (No. 2) [2002] 256 ITR 357 (Raj) held that where vehicle was purchased by the firm used by it for the purpose of its business but it was registered in the name of one of the 11 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 partners then the firm would be entitled to depreciation on vehicle. The hon'ble Delhi High Court in t…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 445/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

…le was incurred by the assessee, the assessee is de facto owner of the vehicle. It is not disputed that it was used for the purpose of business of the assessee company. The hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali (No. 2) [2002] 256 ITR 357 (Raj) held that where vehicle was purchased by the firm used by it for the purpose of its business but it was registered in the name of one of the 11 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 partners then the firm would be entitled to depreciation on vehicle. The hon'ble Delhi High Court in t…

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 318/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

…le was incurred by the assessee, the assessee is de facto owner of the vehicle. It is not disputed that it was used for the purpose of business of the assessee company. The hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali (No. 2) [2002] 256 ITR 357 (Raj) held that where vehicle was purchased by the firm used by it for the purpose of its business but it was registered in the name of one of the 11 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 partners then the firm would be entitled to depreciation on vehicle. The hon'ble Delhi High Court in t…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ABHAY COTEX PVT. LTD.,, JALNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1423/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1423/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kaul & Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha

Section 115JSection 32

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी बी” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण बी बी आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी डी डी. क"णाकरा राव डी लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" "ी क"णाकरा राव,लेखा सद"य "याियक सद"य के सम" "ी "ी क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1423/PUN/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं…

PAN OLEO ENTERPRISE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 569/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 569/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Pan Oleo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner 202, Quantum Towers Of Income-Tax 10(3)(2) बिधम/ Rambaug Lane, S. V. Road C-10, Pratyakshakar Vs. Malad (West), Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla Mumbai-400 064 Complex Mumbai- 400 051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecp9927E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No. 569/Mum/2016 AY: 2012-13 Pan Oleo Enterprises Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 569/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Pan Oleo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner 202, Quantum Towers of Income-tax 10(3)(2) बिधम/ Rambaug Lane, S. V. Road C-10, Pratyakshakar Vs. Malad (West), Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla Mumbai-400 064 Complex Mumbai- 400 051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. AAECP9927E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant by : S…

CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali

Also reported as

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, LKO, LUCKNOW vs. ACP TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

MUKESH TRENDS LIFESTYLE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

M/S SUNSHINE COMMUNICATION PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ASHOKA DHANKUNI KHARAGPUR TOLLWAY LIMITED,, NASHIK

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ASHOKA DHANKUNI KHARAGPUR TOLLWAY LIMITED,, NASHIK

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ASHOKA BELGAUM DHARWARD TOLLWAY LTD,, NASHIK

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ASHOKA BELGAUM DHARWARD TOLLWAY LTD,, NASHIK

SUNSHINE COMMUNICTION P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 5(4), MUMBAI

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

SAGAR POWERTEX PVT. LTD. (EARLIER SAGAR AGENCIES PVT.LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

ASIAN MILLS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1,,, AHMEDABAD

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ABHAY COTEX PVT. LTD.,, JALNA

PAN OLEO ENTERPRISE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI