CIT v. Popular Borewell Service and Others

194 ITR 12Reported decision#23349 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 360,851 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. Popular Borewell Service and Others

Latha Sundar, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1393/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1393, 1394 & 1395/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Ruby George, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…mpugned assessment years were validly done. 5. Continuing his submissions, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that reliance placed by the lower authorities on the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Popular Borewells Services, 194 ITR 12, while holding that mobile line pump was eligible for depreciation, only at the rate of 15% was incorrect. According to him, Jurisdictional High Court was considering depreciation allowable to a rig and compressor mounted on a lorry ITA Nos.1393 to 1395/2017 :- 5 -: whereas in the case of the assessee mobile line pump was an integral part o…

ACIT, Madurai vs. Bhima Jewellery, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 109/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 108/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Mrs. Ilavarasi, Addl. CIT
Section 131(1)Section 32Section 32(1)

…mmissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) fell in error in holding that electrical items and civil works were part of the windmills. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Popular Borewell Service and Others, 194 ITR 12. 11. Per contra, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had relied on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Asian Handlooms vs. DCIT (ITA No.2291/Mds/2008, dated 20.11.2009) and correctly held that civil works and electrical installation of the windmills were eligible for depreciati…

ACIT, Madurai vs. Bhima Jewellery, Nagercoil

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 108/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 108/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Mrs. Ilavarasi, Addl. CIT
Section 131(1)Section 32Section 32(1)

…mmissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) fell in error in holding that electrical items and civil works were part of the windmills. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Popular Borewell Service and Others, 194 ITR 12. 11. Per contra, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had relied on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Asian Handlooms vs. DCIT (ITA No.2291/Mds/2008, dated 20.11.2009) and correctly held that civil works and electrical installation of the windmills were eligible for depreciati…

CIT v. Popular Borewell Service and Others (194 ITR 12) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax