CIT v. Oriental Coal Co. Ltd.

206 ITR 682High Court1994#6905 most cited

What is CIT v. Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. authority for?

Depreciation is not allowable on plant and machinery if the factory experienced a strike or lockout, preventing its actual use for business purposes, as the asset must be used for business to be eligible.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. · section 32 · depreciation allowance · actual use of asset · strike · lockout · business use

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 32Section 40A(2)(b)Section 43BSection 80IBSection 145ASection 24Section 37

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(2)(a)actual payment basisopening wdvset off of lossessection 80hsection 145asection 80hhsection 40a(2)(b)section 40a(2)written down valueblock of assetssection 80ib

Judgments citing CIT v. Oriental Coal Co. Ltd.

Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

…condition for claiming depreciation that the assets should have been owned by the person claiming depreciation and it should have been used for purpose of the business or profession. To strengthen this view, reliance is placed on the following decisions:- 1.5 206 ITR 682, 124 ITR 561 Bom, 131 ITR 884 Gujarat, where it is held that assets not used for business purposes, no depreciation is allowable. In case of Allied Electronics and Magnetics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 160 Taxman 325, it was held that to claim write-off of discarded unit, plant and machinery u/s.31(2)(iii), same plant and machinery must have been used during s…

Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 7712/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

…condition for claiming depreciation that the assets should have been owned by the person claiming depreciation and it should have been used for purpose of the business or profession. To strengthen this view, reliance is placed on the following decisions:- 1.5 206 ITR 682, 124 ITR 561 Bom, 131 ITR 884 Gujarat, where it is held that assets not used for business purposes, no depreciation is allowable. In case of Allied Electronics and Magnetics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 160 Taxman 325, it was held that to claim write-off of discarded unit, plant and machinery u/s.31(2)(iii), same plant and machinery must have been used during s…

Sanofi India Ltd Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6626/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

…condition for claiming depreciation that the assets should have been owned by the person claiming depreciation and it should have been used for purpose of the business or profession. To strengthen this view, reliance is placed on the following decisions:- 1.5 206 ITR 682, 124 ITR 561 Bom, 131 ITR 884 Gujarat, where it is held that assets not used for business purposes, no depreciation is allowable. In case of Allied Electronics and Magnetics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 160 Taxman 325, it was held that to claim write-off of discarded unit, plant and machinery u/s.31(2)(iii), same plant and machinery must have been used during s…

Hindustan Cables Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 47/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 32

…ed by the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record and going through the various case laws before us in respect of instant issue in the case of CIT vs Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. (1994) 120 CTR (Cal) 202: (1994) 206 ITR 682 (Cal). The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that there was strike, lockout in the factory for two years and the plant and machinery has not been actually used, then assessee would not be entitled for depreciation, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held in that case as under; “Section 32(1) lays down two conditions to be satisfied by an assessee before…

Hindustan Cables Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 46/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 32

…ed by the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record and going through the various case laws before us in respect of instant issue in the case of CIT vs Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. (1994) 120 CTR (Cal) 202: (1994) 206 ITR 682 (Cal). The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that there was strike, lockout in the factory for two years and the plant and machinery has not been actually used, then assessee would not be entitled for depreciation, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held in that case as under; “Section 32(1) lays down two conditions to be satisfied by an assessee before…

Hindustan Cables Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT Cir 12 (1), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 45/KOL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 32

…ed by the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record and going through the various case laws before us in respect of instant issue in the case of CIT vs Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. (1994) 120 CTR (Cal) 202: (1994) 206 ITR 682 (Cal). The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that there was strike, lockout in the factory for two years and the plant and machinery has not been actually used, then assessee would not be entitled for depreciation, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held in that case as under; “Section 32(1) lays down two conditions to be satisfied by an assessee before…

Beeyu Overseas Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT-Cir.4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 409/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…12.3 We also note that the case laws on which ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance do not cover the case of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT v. Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 682 (Cal), for which we note that it deals with AYs 1983-84 and 1984-85 which are prior to the amendment made to section 32 of the Act as referred above wherein the concept of ‘block of assets’ was not brought on the statute. Hence, the said decision cannot be applied in the present case. Also he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court…

M/S. Business India Television International Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03 is dismissed; whereas the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment

ITA 1358/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O. P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Subhakant Sahu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…Rule 5 and Appedix-IA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, but shall continue to remain the part of the block of assets for all other purpose except for the purpose of claiming depreciation unless put to use. b) In the case of CIT vs. Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 682/78 Taxman 240(Cal.) it has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court that where assets were not at all used due to lock out, depreciation cannot be allowed. Reliance is also placed on the decisions in Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 25 ITR 265(SC); DCIT vs. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital (2007) 159 Taxman 58/290 ITR 353 (Kar.) and CIT vs. Suhri…

ITO, WD-11(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Kesoram Textile Mills Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 126/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala
Section 50

…Only one unit has been shut down. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Budge Budge Company Ltd. Vs CIT has held as follows :- “The learned Tribunal found the decision of this court in the case of CIT Vs. Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. reported in (1994) 206 ITR 682 was squarely applicable to this case in rejecting the contention of the appellant that there was passive use of the plant and machinery of the mills for depreciation to be allowed in the lock- out period. In our view the decisions relied upon by Mr .Sen support his contention. In Hindusthan Gas & Industries Ltd. this court in allowing the claim o…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Mustang Trading & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3309/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Mr.G.Gireesh, CAFor Respondent: 22.02.2017
Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

…ding an item in the block will not make it eligible for the depreciation if other conditions for allowability of the claim are not satisfied. 2.3 Having regard to the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 682, wherein it is held that where there was strike/lock-out in the factory for two years and the plant and machinery has not been actually used, then assessee would not be entitled for depreciation, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the action of the AO. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the interest on advances to subsidiary companies to the exten…

Cybersol Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 8 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2749/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 2749/Mum/2016 : (A.Y : 2012-13) M/S Cybersol Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito 8(1)(2) 524-527, Raheja Metroplex Room No.601-A, 6Th Floor (Ijmima) Aayakar Bhavan Behind Goregaon Sports Club M.K.Road Off Link Road, Malad West Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan : Aabcc3318B (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K Gopal / Ms Neha Pranjape प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Jintendra Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2017 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : /04/2017

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal /For Respondent: Shri Jintendra Kumar
Section 2Section 32Section 43(6)Section 50

…Assessing Officer. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in the case of Dinesh Kumar Gulabchand Agarwal Vs. CIT [267 ITR 768], and the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Oriental Coal Company Ltd. [206 ITR 682]. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee before us vehemently reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. He further submits that Clause 11 of section 2 of Income Tax Act defines ‘Block of Assets’ as a ‘group of assets falling within a class of assets comprising (a) tangible assets being building, machinery plant or furniture (b)…

Smt. Maitreyee Das, Purba Medinipur vs. I.to WD - 1, Haldia

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 780/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.780/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.L.Bhowmick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dinabandhu Naskar, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…er was not ready for instant use for business and he is absolutely wrong in rejecting the Calcutta High Court decision in the case of CIT V Union Carbide(P) Ltd 254 ITR488 referring to some other decisions including the Cal .High Court decision as reported in 206 ITR 682 in the case of CIT V Oriental Coal Co. Ltd.; IV That the Ld' Commissioner is absolutely misguided himself in holding that road tax or insurance premium in respect of the vehicle is a capital and not a revenue expenditure and thereby wrongly refused to allow the deduction; V. The Appellate Commissioner is wrong to reject the Ground No 7 before him…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Encorp E Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 4461/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 1799/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), M-4, Surya Mansion, Kausalya Park, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos. 4460 & 4461/Del/2011 : Asstt. Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), Office No. 202, F-46, Bhagat Singh New Delhi Market, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce3129L Assessee By : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…ore, depreciation was not allowable u/s 32 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed Rs.1,86,85,586/-. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: ITA Nos. 1799, 4460 & 4461/Del/2011 15 Encorp E Services Ltd. " CIT Vs oriental Coal Co. Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 682 (Cal) 26. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: “(i) “The appellant company is engaged in the online lottery business under the band “Lotto” from its inception in December 2003. The assessee company was operating under the license of Arunachal Pradesh Government to run the lottery business. It…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Encorp E Service Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 1799/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 1799/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), M-4, Surya Mansion, Kausalya Park, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos. 4460 & 4461/Del/2011 : Asstt. Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), Office No. 202, F-46, Bhagat Singh New Delhi Market, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce3129L Assessee By : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…ore, depreciation was not allowable u/s 32 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed Rs.1,86,85,586/-. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: ITA Nos. 1799, 4460 & 4461/Del/2011 15 Encorp E Services Ltd. " CIT Vs oriental Coal Co. Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 682 (Cal) 26. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: “(i) “The appellant company is engaged in the online lottery business under the band “Lotto” from its inception in December 2003. The assessee company was operating under the license of Arunachal Pradesh Government to run the lottery business. It…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/203/2009HC Delhi19 Aug 2009
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43

…enue contends that passive use is excluded whereas the assessee contends that passive use is included. The Revenue relies upon Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital, 290 ITR 353, Commissioner of income-tax vs. Oriental Coal Ltd., 206 ITR 682 and Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Anr., 267 ITR 768. The counsel for the assessee relied upon Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Nahar Exports Ltd., 296 ITR 419, Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Vir Khanna, 306 ITR 14. 4. The issue, therefore, needs to be looked at from two perspectives, firstly, whether…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Yamaha Motor India P.Ltd

ITA - 60 / 2009HC Delhi09 Jul 2009
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iii)Section 43Section 43(6)(c)Section 50(2)

…Revenue contends that passive use is excluded whereas the assessee contends that passive use is included. The Revenue relies upon Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital, 290 ITR 353, Commissioner of income-tax vs. Oriental Coal Ltd., 206 ITR 682 and Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Anr., 267 ITR 768. The counsel for the assessee relied upon Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Nahar Exports Ltd., 296 ITR 419, Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Vir Khanna, 306 ITR 14. - 4. The issue, therefore, needs to be looked at from two perspectives, firstly, whether passive us…

CIT v. Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. (206 ITR 682) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax