CIT v. Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd.

247 ITR 12High Court2001#2308 most cited

What is CIT v. Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd. authority for?

An asset, once installed and kept in an operational condition for business use, is eligible for depreciation even if it is not actively used during the entire previous year due to external business reasons.

50

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd. · depreciation allowance · asset not in use · machinery operational condition · ready for use · non-usage of asset · cold storage depreciation · eligibility for depreciation · section 32 · passive use of asset · Delhi High Court depreciation

Also reported as

113 Taxmann 103

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBDSection 143(1)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 43BSection 80A(6)

Issues it is cited on

ready for usesection 41(2)section 2(42c)section 2(19aa)section 43(6)section 50bconstruction pesection 2(11)business transfer agreementsection 39section 49resulting company

Judgments citing CIT v. Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd.

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

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER 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 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…

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

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER 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 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…

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

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER 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 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…

ACIT CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIHAAN NETWORKS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4064/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12 Acit,Circle-26(2) Vs. Vihaan Networks Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. A-60, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-01, New Delhi – 110 028 Pan Aaccr2460C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Bajaj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

…nstalled by the assessee and therefore there is no reason to draw adverse inference as to their usage for the purposes of business. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Refrigeration and Allied Industries Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 12 and Capital Bus Services vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 304. It was also pointed out that the decisions (supra) were followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Yamaha Motor India Private Ltd. (2009) 183 Taxman 291. 11 ACIT vs. Vihaan Networks Pvt. Ltd. CO No. 137/Del/2019 Vihan Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 15. We do not find any adverse comment on the ab…

M/S POORNACHAND AGRAWAL, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 104/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 104/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Pooranchand Agrawal C/O. Bagadia Enterprises, Near Shiv Talkies, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495001 Pan : Aaifp8483G

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ot justify declining of his claim for depreciation on the same. The Ld. AR, in order to fortify his aforesaid contention, had relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of (i). CIT Vs. Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd., (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del); (ii) National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2013) 357 ITR 253 (Delhi) and (iii). CIT Vs. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 467 (Del.). 13. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contention of the assessee and are unable to persuade ourselves to concur with the same. In our considered view, the Ld. AR had misconceived t…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3357/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…reason in the concerned assessment year, the assessee would not be denied the depreciation. This was so discussed and restated, after taking stock of various judgments, by a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 12. In that case, the assessee owned a cold storage at Karnal. The machinery installed, was not put to use during the whole of the previous year. The non-user was on account of the fact that there was very weak crop of potatoes available in the season and potatoes did not come from the hirers in the cold storage. Therefore, there was no business from…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3356/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…reason in the concerned assessment year, the assessee would not be denied the depreciation. This was so discussed and restated, after taking stock of various judgments, by a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 12. In that case, the assessee owned a cold storage at Karnal. The machinery installed, was not put to use during the whole of the previous year. The non-user was on account of the fact that there was very weak crop of potatoes available in the season and potatoes did not come from the hirers in the cold storage. Therefore, there was no business from…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3355/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…reason in the concerned assessment year, the assessee would not be denied the depreciation. This was so discussed and restated, after taking stock of various judgments, by a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 12. In that case, the assessee owned a cold storage at Karnal. The machinery installed, was not put to use during the whole of the previous year. The non-user was on account of the fact that there was very weak crop of potatoes available in the season and potatoes did not come from the hirers in the cold storage. Therefore, there was no business from…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 5468/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…reason in the concerned assessment year, the assessee would not be denied the depreciation. This was so discussed and restated, after taking stock of various judgments, by a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 12. In that case, the assessee owned a cold storage at Karnal. The machinery installed, was not put to use during the whole of the previous year. The non-user was on account of the fact that there was very weak crop of potatoes available in the season and potatoes did not come from the hirers in the cold storage. Therefore, there was no business from…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 5467/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…reason in the concerned assessment year, the assessee would not be denied the depreciation. This was so discussed and restated, after taking stock of various judgments, by a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 12. In that case, the assessee owned a cold storage at Karnal. The machinery installed, was not put to use during the whole of the previous year. The non-user was on account of the fact that there was very weak crop of potatoes available in the season and potatoes did not come from the hirers in the cold storage. Therefore, there was no business from…

SPAN AIR PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2755/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaspan Air Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit 303, 3Rd Floor, Rasvilas Circle – 24(1) Salcon Plot No.D-1, New Delhi District – Central Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaacs 2411 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M. R. Sahu, C.A. Revenue By Shri B. M. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2023

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Span Air Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 303, 3rd Floor, Rasvilas Circle – 24(1) Salcon Plot No.D-1, New Delhi District – Central Saket, New Delhi-110 017 PAN No. AAACS 2411 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri M. R. Sahu, C.A. Revenue by Shri B. M. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 25.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 31.05.2023 PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Ta…

SHRI DEVKRIPA TEXTILE MILLS (P) LTD. ,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, BHILWARA CIRCLE, BHILWARA

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

ITA 467/JODH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur05 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…Mills P. Ltd. other expenses. The ld. AR for the assessee strongly relied upon the two judgment to support his case which reads as under:-  CIT vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 358 ITR 314 ( Mad H.C.)  CIT vs. Refrigeration and Allied Industries Ltd. 247 ITR 12 (Del H.C.) Per contra, the ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(A). 8. 9. We have considered the rival contention and perused the materials available on record. It is the submission of the assessee that the business operation has not been discontinued permanently, but it was only suspended for a temporary period. The Ld A.R also submi…

SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 258/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…ely implied but also the cases where there is what may be described as passive user of the same in the business and the same can be said to be in use when it is kept ready for use. The Delhi High Court in CIT v. Refrigeration and Allied Industries Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 12, has held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation allowance on the cold storage plant though the machinery had not actually worked during the accounting period. 6. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation [2002] 253 ITR 303 has held that the assessee who was the transporter had to keep spare engines in th…

SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 257/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…ely implied but also the cases where there is what may be described as passive user of the same in the business and the same can be said to be in use when it is kept ready for use. The Delhi High Court in CIT v. Refrigeration and Allied Industries Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 12, has held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation allowance on the cold storage plant though the machinery had not actually worked during the accounting period. 6. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation [2002] 253 ITR 303 has held that the assessee who was the transporter had to keep spare engines in th…

SHRI KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 77/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Magow, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rahul Dhawan, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 250(6)

…actually used as may seen from the following decisions: 10 Kanav Khanna v. Asstt. CIT a CTT Vs. O.P. Khanna & Sons (1983) 140ITR 558(P&H); b) CIT Vs. Geo Tech Construction Corpn. (2000) 244 ITR 452(Ker.); c) CIT Vs. Refrigeration & Allied Industries (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del); d) CIT Vs. Vindhyachal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 272 ITR 583(MP.); e) CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement Ltd. (1945) 13 ITR 415(Pat.); f) CIT Vs. Kanoria General Dealers Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 524(Cal).” 6. The assessee filed the written submissions which are kept in the record. The ld Counsel of the assessee argued that the additional eviden…

SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1607/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT DR &
Section 250(6)

…was actually used for the purpose of business—User of office need not be full-fledged—Therefore, assessee is entitled to depreciation on the flat in the relevant assessment year—CIT vs. Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd. (2000) 163 CTR (Del) 498 : (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del) and Capital Bus Service (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 17 CTR (Del) 155: (1980) 123 ITR 404 (Del) followed The above case laws are squarely applicable to the case of appellant from which your honour can appreciate that once the assets are ready to use, depreciation is allowable irrespective of the fact that the assets are actually used or not. 3.9…

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1533/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT DR &
Section 250(6)

…was actually used for the purpose of business—User of office need not be full-fledged—Therefore, assessee is entitled to depreciation on the flat in the relevant assessment year—CIT vs. Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd. (2000) 163 CTR (Del) 498 : (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del) and Capital Bus Service (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 17 CTR (Del) 155: (1980) 123 ITR 404 (Del) followed The above case laws are squarely applicable to the case of appellant from which your honour can appreciate that once the assets are ready to use, depreciation is allowable irrespective of the fact that the assets are actually used or not. 3.9…

NATUROL BIOCHEMICALS AND FOODS LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS KALEESUWARI REFINERY AND INDUSTRY PVT LTD ),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 760/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Natural Biochemicals & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Foods Ltd. (Now Known As Income-Tax, Kaleesuwari Refinery & Circle – 16(1), Industry Pvt. Ltd.), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcn 7337H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Psrvv Surya Rao Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai Date Of Hearing: 27/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri PSRVV Surya RaoFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)

…ady for use in the business once it got revived and that amounted to passive use of the assets, which would meet the requirements of Section 32. These judgments are : (1) Capital Bus Service (supra) (2) CIT Vs. Refrigeration and Allied Industries Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 12. (3) CIT Vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd. (2009) 183 Taxman 212 The Tribunal also found that the claim of passive use of the assets was supported by the efforts made by the assessee to restart the business. According to the Tribunal, the assessee had purchased new plant and machinery in the relevant previous year, had incurred expenses of Rs.1.23 lakhs on…

GARG ACRYLIC LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6965/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Gurmil Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…These judgements included, Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 79 ITR 613 (Bom); CIT v. Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 297 (Del); CIT v. Vayithri Plantations Ltd. (1981)128 ITR 675 (Mad) and CIT v. Refrigeration and Allied Industries Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del). Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Integrated Technologies Ltd. in ITA No.530/2011 vide judgment and order dated 16th December, 2011 upheld the similar principle that it is not necessary that the plant and machinery owned by the assessee should be actually put to use in the relevant accounting year to justify the cl…

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

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

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…Ltd. (1981) 128 ITR 675 (Mad) " CIT vs. G.N. Agrawal (Individual): 217 ITR 250 (Bom.) " CIT vs. India Tea & Timber Trading Co. 221 ITR 857(Gau) " CIT vs. Geo Tech Construction Corpn: 244 ITR 452 (Ker.) " CIT vs. Refrigeration and Allied Industries Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del) " CIT V. Swarup Vegetable Products India Limited: 277 ITR 60 (All.) " ReflexionsNarayani Impex (P) Ltd. v. ITO: 2013 (3) TMI 434 63 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. " CIT vs. OswalWoollen Mills Limited: 206 CTR 141 (P&H) " CIT vs. Norplex Oak India : 198 Taxman 470 (Cal) " CIT vs. Premier Industries (India) Ltd.: 323 ITR 672 (MP) " CIT vs. Panacea…

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3