CIT v. Piccadilly Agro Industries Limited

311 ITR 24High Court#20448 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(42c)section 2(19aa)ready for usesection 50bbusiness transfer agreementsection 49section 39resulting companytransferee companysection 43(6)section 28(iv)transferor company

Judgments citing CIT v. Piccadilly Agro Industries Limited

Indus Towers Limited (Formerly Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd and As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Indus Tower Ltd), Gurugram, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

…ith customers and has it been offered for testing and evaluation to the sharing operators. This view is no longer res integra in view of the decision of Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Piccadilly Agro Industries Limited reported in 311 ITR 24 (P&H) ; decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited vs PCIT reported in 403 ITR 248 (Bom). It is pertinent to note that the SLP preferred by the revenue against this decision was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court which is reported in 259 Taxman 79 (SC). 14.4. We find that the Hon‟ble Courts have already held t…

ACIT, Circle 10, New Delhi vs. Indus Tower Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2212/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

…ith customers and has it been offered for testing and evaluation to the sharing operators. This view is no longer res integra in view of the decision of Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Piccadilly Agro Industries Limited reported in 311 ITR 24 (P&H) ; decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited vs PCIT reported in 403 ITR 248 (Bom). It is pertinent to note that the SLP preferred by the revenue against this decision was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court which is reported in 259 Taxman 79 (SC). 14.4. We find that the Hon‟ble Courts have already held t…

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1962/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

…ith customers and has it been offered for testing and evaluation to the sharing operators. This view is no longer res integra in view of the decision of Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Piccadilly Agro Industries Limited reported in 311 ITR 24 (P&H) ; decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited vs PCIT reported in 403 ITR 248 (Bom). It is pertinent to note that the SLP preferred by the revenue against this decision was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court which is reported in 259 Taxman 79 (SC). 14.4. We find that the Hon‟ble Courts have already held t…

Lupin Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 8097/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)
Section 144Section 37(1)

…the benefit of depreciation on the ground that the know-how was used for a very short duration for trial / experimental run. [ACIT V. Ashima Syntex Ltd. 251 ITR 133 (Guj), CIT v. Union Carbide (I) Ltd. 254 ITR 488 (Cal), CIT Vs. Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd. 311 ITR 24 (P&H)” 9. The Assessing Officer has noted that assessee written off the entire cost of the know-how in the books of account hence he disallowed the claim of deprecation u/s.32(1) of the Act. The learned DRP has confirmed the Assessing Officers action by holding as under:- “We have considered this issue. The assessee has given an interesting inte…

CIT v. Piccadilly Agro Industries Limited (311 ITR 24) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax