CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.

341 ITR 467High Court2012#1003 most cited

What is CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. authority for?

The Legislature abolished terminal depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) and the taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2), replacing these provisions with the requirement to reduce sale proceeds of depreciable assets from the block of assets.

108

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Oswal Agro Mills Ltd · section 32(1) · section 41(2) · block of assets · terminal depreciation · balancing charge · depreciable asset sale proceeds · legislative amendment depreciation · abolition individual asset depreciation

Also reported as

238 CTR 113

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 80IASection 147Section 22Section 23Section 32(1)Section 43(5)

Issues it is cited on

section 41(2)ready for usesection 43(6)(c)section 41(1)(a)remission or cessation of liabilitysection 43(6)section 2(11)opening wdvsection 65b(4)block of assetsspeculation losssection 73

Judgments citing CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

…e of the assessee, the whole premise was used solely for the business purpose. 4.10. Assessee in this regard, placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 111 (Del) (2) CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 467 (Del) (3) ACIT v. S.K. Patel Family Trust [2013] 33 taxmann.com 678 (Guj) (4) Swati Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 38 SOT 208 (Mum) 4.11. Ld. CIT(A) observed that ld. Assessing Officer has never raised any doubts regarding use of building for business purpose and allowed depreciation in the earlier assessment orders considering that the building…

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4320/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

…e of the assessee, the whole premise was used solely for the business purpose. 4.10. Assessee in this regard, placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 111 (Del) (2) CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 467 (Del) (3) ACIT v. S.K. Patel Family Trust [2013] 33 taxmann.com 678 (Guj) (4) Swati Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 38 SOT 208 (Mum) 4.11. Ld. CIT(A) observed that ld. Assessing Officer has never raised any doubts regarding use of building for business purpose and allowed depreciation in the earlier assessment orders considering that the building…

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4319/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

…e of the assessee, the whole premise was used solely for the business purpose. 4.10. Assessee in this regard, placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 111 (Del) (2) CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 467 (Del) (3) ACIT v. S.K. Patel Family Trust [2013] 33 taxmann.com 678 (Guj) (4) Swati Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 38 SOT 208 (Mum) 4.11. Ld. CIT(A) observed that ld. Assessing Officer has never raised any doubts regarding use of building for business purpose and allowed depreciation in the earlier assessment orders considering that the building…

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4318/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

…e of the assessee, the whole premise was used solely for the business purpose. 4.10. Assessee in this regard, placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 111 (Del) (2) CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 467 (Del) (3) ACIT v. S.K. Patel Family Trust [2013] 33 taxmann.com 678 (Guj) (4) Swati Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 38 SOT 208 (Mum) 4.11. Ld. CIT(A) observed that ld. Assessing Officer has never raised any doubts regarding use of building for business purpose and allowed depreciation in the earlier assessment orders considering that the building…

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -6 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4045/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

…e of the assessee, the whole premise was used solely for the business purpose. 4.10. Assessee in this regard, placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 111 (Del) (2) CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 467 (Del) (3) ACIT v. S.K. Patel Family Trust [2013] 33 taxmann.com 678 (Guj) (4) Swati Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 38 SOT 208 (Mum) 4.11. Ld. CIT(A) observed that ld. Assessing Officer has never raised any doubts regarding use of building for business purpose and allowed depreciation in the earlier assessment orders considering that the building…

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4044/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

…e of the assessee, the whole premise was used solely for the business purpose. 4.10. Assessee in this regard, placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 111 (Del) (2) CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 467 (Del) (3) ACIT v. S.K. Patel Family Trust [2013] 33 taxmann.com 678 (Guj) (4) Swati Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 38 SOT 208 (Mum) 4.11. Ld. CIT(A) observed that ld. Assessing Officer has never raised any doubts regarding use of building for business purpose and allowed depreciation in the earlier assessment orders considering that the building…

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4043/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

…e of the assessee, the whole premise was used solely for the business purpose. 4.10. Assessee in this regard, placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 111 (Del) (2) CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 467 (Del) (3) ACIT v. S.K. Patel Family Trust [2013] 33 taxmann.com 678 (Guj) (4) Swati Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 38 SOT 208 (Mum) 4.11. Ld. CIT(A) observed that ld. Assessing Officer has never raised any doubts regarding use of building for business purpose and allowed depreciation in the earlier assessment orders considering that the building…

ACIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3998/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

…e of the assessee, the whole premise was used solely for the business purpose. 4.10. Assessee in this regard, placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 111 (Del) (2) CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 467 (Del) (3) ACIT v. S.K. Patel Family Trust [2013] 33 taxmann.com 678 (Guj) (4) Swati Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 38 SOT 208 (Mum) 4.11. Ld. CIT(A) observed that ld. Assessing Officer has never raised any doubts regarding use of building for business purpose and allowed depreciation in the earlier assessment orders considering that the building…

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3995/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

…e of the assessee, the whole premise was used solely for the business purpose. 4.10. Assessee in this regard, placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 111 (Del) (2) CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 467 (Del) (3) ACIT v. S.K. Patel Family Trust [2013] 33 taxmann.com 678 (Guj) (4) Swati Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 38 SOT 208 (Mum) 4.11. Ld. CIT(A) observed that ld. Assessing Officer has never raised any doubts regarding use of building for business purpose and allowed depreciation in the earlier assessment orders considering that the building…

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1561/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / Ms SukanyaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 1056/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s Grasim Industries Ltd., DCIT, CC-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, Old CGO Building, 9th Floor, M.K. Road, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. PAN: AAACG4464B Assessee) : Revenue) I.T.A. No. 1561/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) JCIT, CC-1(4), M/s Grasim Industries Ltd., A-Wing, 2nd Floor, Room No. 902, Old CGO Building, 9th Floor, M.K. Road, Aditya Birla Centre, Vs. Mumb…

JAYARAM REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

ITA 711/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…forward from earlier years. Once an asset is part of a block, depreciation is allowable on the block as a whole. In holding so, we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. reported in 341 ITR 467 wherein it was held as under: 29. As per amended section 32, deduction is to be allowed - "In the case of any block of assets, such percentage on the written down value thereof as may be prescribed". Thus, the depreciation is allowed on block of assets, and the revenue cannot segregate a particular asset therefrom on the ground that it was not pu…

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BENGALURU

ITA 706/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…forward from earlier years. Once an asset is part of a block, depreciation is allowable on the block as a whole. In holding so, we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. reported in 341 ITR 467 wherein it was held as under: 29. As per amended section 32, deduction is to be allowed - "In the case of any block of assets, such percentage on the written down value thereof as may be prescribed". Thus, the depreciation is allowed on block of assets, and the revenue cannot segregate a particular asset therefrom on the ground that it was not pu…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7, DELHI vs. SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 414 / 2025HC Delhi12 Sept 2025
Section 260A

…assets. The view we have taken finds resonance and acceptance in two decisions of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Eastman Industries Limited, 174 Taxman 344 and Commissioner of Income Tax versus Oswal Agro Mills Limited, (2012) 341 ITR 467 (Del.).” 12. The Court thereafter took into consideration the Direct Taxes Circular no. 469 issued on 23.09.1986. The same reads as follows: “6.3 As mentioned by the Economic Administration Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:22.09.2025 16:57:02 Signature Not Verified…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2224/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dcit, (Corporate Finance Division) Central Circle 1(4), A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, Vs. Room No. 902, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai - 400030 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg 4464B Dcit, M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Central Circle 1(4), (Corporate Finance Division) Room No. 902, A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, Old Cgo Building, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai - 400030 Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate, Shri Madhur Agarwal & Respondent By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit(Dr) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT(DR)
Section 37(1)Section 40Section 80I

…e same was only let out during the year. In any case, this section also does not provide for carving out depreciation for disallowance, as is done by the AO in the present case. We find that the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in CIT v/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 467 (Delhi), observed as under:- “32. Another significant and contemporaneous development, which needs to be noticed is that the Legislature has also deleted the provision for allowing terminal depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previ- ously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in t…

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTIRES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 6758/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2008-09
Section 36(1)(va)

…me was only let out during the year. In any case,\nthis section also does not provide for carving out\ndepreciation for disallowance, as is done by the AO in the\npresent case. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court\nin CIT v/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 467\n(Delhi), observed as under:-\n\n“32. Another significant and contemporaneous\ndevelopment, which needs to be noticed is that the\nLegislature has also deleted the provision for\nallowing terminal depreciation in respect of each\nasset, which was previously allowable under\nsection 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing\ncharge under section 41…

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4385/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3762/MUM/2009 (Assessment Year: 2006-2007) Grasim Industries Limited, (Corporate Finance Division), A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400030. Maharashtra [PAN: AAACG4464B] Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 6(3), 5th Floor, Room No.505, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400020. Appellant Vs Respondent ITA No.4385/MUM/2009 (Assessment Year: 2006-2007) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3), Mumbai, Room No. 522, 5th Floor, Aayakar B…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3762/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Grasim Industries Limited, (Corporate Finance Division), A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400030. Maharashtra [PAN: AAACG4464B] …………. Appellant Additional Commissioner of Income Vs Tax, Range 6(3), 5th Floor, Room No.505, Aayakar Bhavan, …………. Respondent Mumbai – 400020. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3), Mumbai, Room No. 522, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 …………. Appellant Grasim Industries Limited, Vs Century B…

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 6307/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

…me was only let out during the year. In\nany case, this section also does not provide for carving out\ndepreciation for disallowance, as is done by the AO in the present\ncase. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v/s Oswal\nAgro Mills Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 467 (Delhi), observed as under:-\n“32. Another significant and contemporaneous development,\nwhich needs to be noticed is that the Legislature has also\ndeleted the provision for allowing terminal depreciation in\nrespect of each asset, which was previ- ously allowable under\nsection 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under\nsection 41(2…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 5925/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

…me was only let out during the year. In\nany case, this section also does not provide for carving out\ndepreciation for disallowance, as is done by the AO in the present\ncase. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v/s Oswal\nAgro Mills Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 467 (Delhi), observed as under:-\n“32. Another significant and contemporaneous development,\nwhich needs to be noticed is that the Legislature has also\ndeleted the provision for allowing terminal depreciation in\nrespect of each asset, which was previ- ously allowable under\nsection 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under\nsection 41(2…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1166/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ck of assets. The view we have taken finds resonance and acceptance in two decisions of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Eastman Industries Limited, 174 Taxman 344 and Commissioner of Income Tax versus Oswal Agro Mills Limited, (2012) 341 ITR 467 (Del.).” 12. The Court thereafter took into consideration the Direct Taxes Circular no. 469 issued on 23.09.1986. The same reads as follows: “6.3 As mentioned by the Economic Administration Reforms Commission (Report No. 12, para 20), the existing system in this regard requires the calculation of depreciation in respect of each capital asset sepa…

Showing 1–20 of 108 · Page 1 of 6

CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. (341 ITR 467) — Cited in 108 Judgments | BharatTax