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 367,154 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.

Rohda Specialtiy Chemicals India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law

ITA 830/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 830/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Vs. Addl. Cit – Circle 6(1) India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Room No.511, Aayakar Bhawan M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals Mk Road India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing New Marine Lines 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan : Aaaca3841L Ita No. 622/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) Dcit -7(2) Vs. M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Room No.624, Mk Road India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020 M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish V ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajguru M
Section 143(3)

…on is allowable even if unit remains closed during the entire year. For this he places reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Bench in the case of Swati Synthetics Ltd. Vs ITO [38 SOT 208] and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. [238 CTR 113]. 61. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the assessment order. 42 ITA NO. 830/MUM/2014 and ITA NO. 622/MUM/2014 M/s Rhodia Specialty Chemicals India Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.) , A.Y : 2009-10 62. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. It is undisputed fact that the…

DCIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law

ITA 622/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 830/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Vs. Addl. Cit – Circle 6(1) India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Room No.511, Aayakar Bhawan M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals Mk Road India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing New Marine Lines 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan : Aaaca3841L Ita No. 622/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) Dcit -7(2) Vs. M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Room No.624, Mk Road India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020 M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish V ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajguru M
Section 143(3)

…on is allowable even if unit remains closed during the entire year. For this he places reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Bench in the case of Swati Synthetics Ltd. Vs ITO [38 SOT 208] and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. [238 CTR 113]. 61. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the assessment order. 42 ITA NO. 830/MUM/2014 and ITA NO. 622/MUM/2014 M/s Rhodia Specialty Chemicals India Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.) , A.Y : 2009-10 62. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. It is undisputed fact that the…

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)

…not put to use during the period under consideration it is incumbent upon the AO to grant relief u/s.32 of the Act and it is not necessary to the assessee to use the asset year after year. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of CIT vs. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd 341 ITR 467(Delhi) and the decision of (358 ITR 314) (Mad). :- 4 -: 5.0 Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is on appeal before us. Appearing for the Revenue, the Learned Departmental Representative (in short ‘Ld.DR’) argued that the machinery was kept idle during the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year and the assessee has no…

M/S. Kla India Public Ltd., Delhi vs. JCIT, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3332/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

…o Tech Construction Corporation, 244 ITR 452 (Ker) ii) CIT vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., 206 CTR 141 (P&H) iii). CIT vs. Nahar Export Ltd., 296 ITR 419, 296 ITR 419 (P&H) iv). Capital Bus Service (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 123 ITR 404. v). CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., 341 ITR 467 vi). CIT v. Insilco Ltd., 320 ITR 322 vii). CIT v. Radio Today Broadcasting Ltd., 382 ITR 42 (Del.) viii). CIT v. Soughern Petrochemical Industries Corpn. Ltd. 292 ITR 362 6. It was also submitted that even otherwise the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that sortex machine and generator were also plant and machinery and form the part of block of…

Goodyear South Asia Tyers P.Ltd, Aurangabad vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Aurangabad

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

ITA 7715/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Goodyear South Asia Tyres- Private Limited, H-18, Midc Industrial Area, Waluj , Aurangabad- 431136 Pan: Aabcg 5544P ...... Appellant Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -1, Jeevan Suman, Lic Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Cannought Place, Town Centre, N-5, Cidco, Jalgaon Road, Aurangabad - 431003 .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…assessee was rightly given the benefit of deprecation in the years in question. The question stands answered against the Revenue.” 18. To the similar effect is the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., 341 ITR 467 (Del). The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sonal Gum Industries (supra) has also held that in relation to the block of assets, it is not possible to segregate items falling within the block for the purposes of granting depreciation or restricting the claim thereof. According to the Hon’ble High Court, once it is found that the assets ar…

ITO 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Air Trade and Tours P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2588/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tralshawala

…he rental income of the assets used for the purpose of business. 7. With regard to declining of claim of depreciation, we found that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., 341 ITR 467 (Del), wherein it was held that assets forming part of block of assets are eligible for claim of depreciation. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting disallowance on depreciation in respect of assets forming part of block of assets. 8. In the assessment yea…

ITO 1(1)1, Mumbai vs. Air Trade and Tours P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4560/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tralshawala

…he rental income of the assets used for the purpose of business. 7. With regard to declining of claim of depreciation, we found that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., 341 ITR 467 (Del), wherein it was held that assets forming part of block of assets are eligible for claim of depreciation. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting disallowance on depreciation in respect of assets forming part of block of assets. 8. In the assessment yea…

ITO 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Air Traders & Tours P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5184/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tralshawala

…he rental income of the assets used for the purpose of business. 7. With regard to declining of claim of depreciation, we found that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., 341 ITR 467 (Del), wherein it was held that assets forming part of block of assets are eligible for claim of depreciation. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting disallowance on depreciation in respect of assets forming part of block of assets. 8. In the assessment yea…

Blue Blends (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Sanjukta Chowdhury
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…electronic installation. The AO asked the details of unit-wise claimed by the assessee and disallowed claim of Rs.13,09,788/-, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). 6. Ld. AR placed on record decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Oswal Agro Mills, 238 CTR 113, wherein it was also held that despite of non-user of assets, depreciation is allowable, if it is part of “block of assets”. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of Travancore Chemicals & Mfg. Co. Ltd., 142 Taxman 316. 7. We have considered rival contentions and found that assets on which AO has disallowed the claim of…

Smt. Sudesh Yadav, Mahendergarh vs. ITO, Narnaul

The appeal is allowed

ITA 514/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sudesh Yadav, Vs. Ito, W/O Vijay Paul Rao, Ward-2, Prop. M/S. Mahaluxmi Petroleum, Narnaul. Narnaul Road, Mohendergarh. (Pan: Abrpy5153A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.C. Yadav & Ms. Shubhangni Yadav, Adv. Department By: Shri Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17 .03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 31:03.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order Mainly On The Grounds That The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Sustaining The Disallowances Of: I) The Claimed Depreciation At Rs.4,56,960 On A New Tank Lorry Purchased For Rs.15,23,110; & Ii) Interest Of Rs.40,400 In Respect Of Old Advance Made To Dr. Rajbir Singh Out Of Self Capital. 2. Besides, An Application Has Been Moved By The Assessee Under Rule 11 Of The Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 For Allowing The Following Additional

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav & Ms. ShubhangniFor Respondent: Shri Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 2(11)Section 32(1)(iii)

…ors have certified the value of the gross block in the audit report. The Learned AR also referred page Nos. 11 and 12 of the paper book wherein the salary paid to driver has been mentioned. He placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Oswal Agro- 238 CTR 113 (Del.); ii) CIT vs. Sonal Gum Industries – 322 ITR 542 (Guj.); iii) Swati Synthetic Ltd. vs. ITO – 38 SOT 208 (Mum.). 8. The Learned Senior DR on the contrary placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. She submitted that the authorities below have dealt with the issue in detail. 9. Considering the above submissions supported with the…

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. Satish B Kaushik, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 5601/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mr. Satish B. Kaushik, बनाम/ The Asst. Commissioner Of 803-04, A Wing, Income Tax – 11(1), V. Raj Classique Chs Ltd Yari Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Mumbai. Versova, Andheri (West), Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aampk1640E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan (D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…2008 which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 598 of 2009 dated 28th July, 2009. The ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Oswal Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 467 (Delhi). 22. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. supported the orders of authorities below. ITA 4832 & 5601/Mum/2012 17 23. We have considered the rival contention and also perused the material available on record and also the judicial pronouncements cited by the rival parties. We have observed that the assessee is the owner of four premises name…

Satish B. Kaushik, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 4832/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mr. Satish B. Kaushik, बनाम/ The Asst. Commissioner Of 803-04, A Wing, Income Tax – 11(1), V. Raj Classique Chs Ltd Yari Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Mumbai. Versova, Andheri (West), Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aampk1640E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan (D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…2008 which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 598 of 2009 dated 28th July, 2009. The ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Oswal Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 467 (Delhi). 22. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. supported the orders of authorities below. ITA 4832 & 5601/Mum/2012 17 23. We have considered the rival contention and also perused the material available on record and also the judicial pronouncements cited by the rival parties. We have observed that the assessee is the owner of four premises name…

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)

…entitled for depreciation. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) rightly directed the AO to allow the depreciation on the assets of the assessee which were included in the block of assets. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. 341 ITR 467 (Del) " CIT Vs Sonal Gum Industries 322 ITR 542 (Guj) 30. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the ITA Nos. 1799, 4460 & 4461/Del/2011 19 Encorp E Services Ltd. present case, it is an admitted fact that the assets on which depreciation has been disallowed by t…

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)

…entitled for depreciation. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) rightly directed the AO to allow the depreciation on the assets of the assessee which were included in the block of assets. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. 341 ITR 467 (Del) " CIT Vs Sonal Gum Industries 322 ITR 542 (Guj) 30. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the ITA Nos. 1799, 4460 & 4461/Del/2011 19 Encorp E Services Ltd. present case, it is an admitted fact that the assets on which depreciation has been disallowed by t…

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

…on is a privilege given to an Assessee and it cannot be turned into a disadvantage. Mr Vohra next referred to the decisions of this Court in CIT v. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.: (2012) 207 Taxmann 61 (Delhi); CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.: (2012) 341 ITR 467 (Delhi); and CIT v. Eastman Industries Ltd.: (2008) ITA 1003/2011 Page 7 of 31 174 Taxmann 344 (Delhi) to illustrate the manner in which capital gains are to be computed in case of depreciable assets. Reasoning and conclusion 10. In order to address the controversy, it would be essential to consider the statutory scheme relati…

Phoenix Chemical Works P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3480/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Phoenix Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. Acit Range-7(1), Ground Floor, 36/A, P.L.Kala Guruji Mumbai. Vs. Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aaacp8948H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Parulekar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar (DR)

…fuel were in doubt and confirmed the addition. The AR of the assessee has argued that the 4 ITA No. 3480/M/2013 Phoenix Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. assessee was entitled for deduction on the basis of case titled as CIT vs. Oswal Agro Mills reported vide (2012) 341 ITR 467 (Del). 12. We have gone through the order of AO as well as CIT(A), both the authorities below have considered the fact and law referred by Ld AR. We found that there was not business activity and the plant and machinery was not used for production purpose, hence the expenditure on account of power and fuel, repair and maintenance, water charges w…

D.C.I.T CC - Xx, Kolkata vs. M/S Arjun Associates Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 919/KOL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D. Naskar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…n deleted. Accordingly, we are of the view that the depreciation cannot be disallowed. For this proposition we are relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. 1. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. 2. Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 467 (Del.) wherein it has held that – 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 n…

D.C.I.T CC - Xx, Kolkata vs. M/S Arjun Associates Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 918/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D. Naskar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…n deleted. Accordingly, we are of the view that the depreciation cannot be disallowed. For this proposition we are relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. 1. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. 2. Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 467 (Del.) wherein it has held that – 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 n…

M/S Arjun Associates Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T (OSD), CC - Xx, Kolkata.

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 551/KOL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D. Naskar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…n deleted. Accordingly, we are of the view that the depreciation cannot be disallowed. For this proposition we are relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. 1. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. 2. Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 467 (Del.) wherein it has held that – 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 n…

M/S Arjun Associates Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T (OSD), CC - Xx, Kolkata.

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 550/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D. Naskar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…n deleted. Accordingly, we are of the view that the depreciation cannot be disallowed. For this proposition we are relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. 1. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. 2. Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 467 (Del.) wherein it has held that – 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 n…