CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited

380 ITR 423High Court2016#880 most cited

What is CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited authority for?

Additional depreciation is allowable under section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery or plant even when put to use for less than 180 days, with the unabsorbed balance available for claim in the subsequent year.

121

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rittal India · Section 32(1)(iia) · additional depreciation · 180 days rule · put to use · half depreciation · subsequent year claim · unabsorbed depreciation · new plant and machinery · Section 32

Also reported as

66 Taxmann.com 4

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 32(1)(iia)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 250Section 43(5)

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)(iia)additional depreciationsection 32(1)(ii)abatement of assessmentclarificatory amendmentsection 32(1)put to usesection 80hhblock of assetssection 32block periodsection 153a(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited

OCL INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4068/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.4068/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Dalmia Bharat Ltd., (Successor In The Interest Of Ocl India Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabco-8750-F बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(1), C R Building New Delhi 110095 आअसं.3767/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Uditnagar, Rourkela, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Dist. Sundargarh, Odisha 769012 बनाम Vs. Dalmia Bharat Ltd., Successor Of Ocl India Ltd., 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabco-8750-F

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Shah, Navin Verma &For Respondent: Shri Amaninder Singh Dhindsa &
Section 43(5)Section 43ASection 53A

…he preceding financial year, i.e., F.Y. 2005-06. The above view is supported by decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi Tribunal in DCIT -vs.- Cosmo Films Ltd. (2012) 13 ITR_TRIB 340 (Del-Trib) & Karnataka High Court in CIT -vs.- Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 423 (Kar). 5.0. Exclusion of profit on sale of fixed asset and investment while computing Book Profit u/s 115JB of the Act [Rs. 5,75,29,183/-] 5.1. During the year under consideration, the assessee has credited to its Profit & Loss A/c, profit on sale of fixed assets and investments amounting to Rs. 5,75,29,183/-. Such profit on sale of fixed Assets…

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

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

ITA 3767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.4068/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Dalmia Bharat Ltd., (Successor In The Interest Of Ocl India Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabco-8750-F बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(1), C R Building New Delhi 110095 आअसं.3767/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Uditnagar, Rourkela, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Dist. Sundargarh, Odisha 769012 बनाम Vs. Dalmia Bharat Ltd., Successor Of Ocl India Ltd., 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabco-8750-F

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Shah, Navin Verma &For Respondent: Shri Amaninder Singh Dhindsa &
Section 43(5)Section 43ASection 53A

…he preceding financial year, i.e., F.Y. 2005-06. The above view is supported by decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi Tribunal in DCIT -vs.- Cosmo Films Ltd. (2012) 13 ITR_TRIB 340 (Del-Trib) & Karnataka High Court in CIT -vs.- Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 423 (Kar). 5.0. Exclusion of profit on sale of fixed asset and investment while computing Book Profit u/s 115JB of the Act [Rs. 5,75,29,183/-] 5.1. During the year under consideration, the assessee has credited to its Profit & Loss A/c, profit on sale of fixed assets and investments amounting to Rs. 5,75,29,183/-. Such profit on sale of fixed Assets…

JCIT(OSD), CIR011(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 234/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.234/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jcit(Osd), Circle-11(1), Kolkata........................…...........................……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Philips Carbon Black Ltd.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Duncan House, 31 Netaji Subhas Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabcp5762E] Appearances By: Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 29Th, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar:

Section 144CSection 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80Section 80I

…180 days in preceding AY. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the impugned disallowance by relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rittal India Pvt Ltd (380 ITR 423) and the Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of DCIT Vs Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd (ITA No. 462 & 752/K/14)involving identical issue. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival parties and perused the materials on records. We find that the ssue under dispute is covered by decision o…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 546/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…n 180 days, the Assessee can claim the remaining depreciation in the subsequent Assessment Year. Such a question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., re- ported in 380 ITR 423. The Court, after referring to the statutory provisions, held and observed in para 8 as under:- "8:- The aforesaid two conditions, ie., the undertaking acquiring new plant and machinery should be a new industrial undertaking, or that it should be claimed in one year, have been done away by substituting clause (iia) with effect from April 1, 2006.…

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 464/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…n 180 days, the Assessee can claim the remaining depreciation in the subsequent Assessment Year. Such a question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., re- ported in 380 ITR 423. The Court, after referring to the statutory provisions, held and observed in para 8 as under:- "8:- The aforesaid two conditions, ie., the undertaking acquiring new plant and machinery should be a new industrial undertaking, or that it should be claimed in one year, have been done away by substituting clause (iia) with effect from April 1, 2006.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 , CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3118/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Sudarmani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…allowed. The revenue carried the matter by way of appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue taking note of decision of High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. Rittal India (P.) Ltd. [2016] 66 taxmann.com 4/380 ITR 423. 9. As rightly pointed out by Mr. T. Ravikumar, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal erred in holding that there was no Judgment in any other High Court, which is in favour of the Department. Without noting the fact that there were several decisions, one of which, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M.M.…

HUHTAMAKI INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 6, MUMBAI

ITA 2668/MUM/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeι.Τ.Α No.2668/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Huhtamaki India Limited A-802, Cresenzo, C-38/39 G Block, Brandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai Pan: Aaact0086E Appellant Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-6, Mumbai 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mahrishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Shrisolgy Jose T. Kottaram(Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/07/2024 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee, J.M: Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of Thelearned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mumbai-6 (For Brevity, ‘Ld.Pcit') Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act'), For Assessment Year 2018-19, Date Of Order21.03.2024.The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The Order Of The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (In Short, ‘The A.O.') Passed Under Section 143(3)Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Date Of Order19/04/2021. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: ShriSolgy Jose T. Kottaram(CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRIAMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ι.Τ.Α No.2668/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Huhtamaki India Limited A-802, Cresenzo, C-38/39 G Block, Brandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai PAN: AAACT0086E APPELLANT VS Principal Commissioner of Income- tax-6, Mumbai 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mahrishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Tiwari Respondent by : ShriSolgy Jose T. Kottaram(CIT DR) Date of hearing : 22/07/2024 Date of pronouncement : 29/07/2024 ORDER PER ANIKESH B…

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1559/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The DCIT CC-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9th floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. CGO Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. PAN No. AAACG 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 JCIT (OSD), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2nd floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9th floor, Old…

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 1055/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…, the action of the AO in withdrawing the spillover additional depreciation allowance is bad in law. 24.3 I also find that on merits the claim of the Appellant is supported by the followings decisions: a) High Court of Karnataka - CIT v. Rittal India Pot Ltd [380 ITR 423] b) Mumbai ITAT - Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Limited Vs ACIT (ITA 790 & 791/Mum/2014) c) CIT, Madurai Vs. Shri T.P.Textiles (P.) Ltd. (246 Тахтап324) (Madras High Court) d) MITC Rolling Mills P. Ltd. us. ACIT (Order dated 13.05.2013 in ITA No. 2789/Mит/2012) (Mumbai ITAT) e) Apollo Tyres Ltd Vs ACTT (64 SOT 203) (Cochin ITAT) f) DCIT Vs Cosmos Films…

DIADORA SHOES PVT LTD,CALICUT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CALICUT

In the result, the assessee’sappeal is allowed

ITA 213/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdiadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2 Vkc Tower, Kolathra P.O Calicut 673001 Vs. Calicut 673655 [Pan:Aabcd9692D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…7 of 2020 (Mad) Mentions that SLP in the case of Brakes India was dismissed by the Hon. Supreme Court. Diadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, Circle - 2 ii. Brakes India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT, ITA 1464 of 2019, (Mad) iii. CIT &Anr. vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. [2016] 380 ITR 423 (Bom) iv. Pr. CIT vs. Godrej Industries Ltd. ITA No. 511 of 2016 (Bom) v. CIT vs. Shri TP Textiles Pvt. Ltd. TCA No. 157 of 2017 (Mad) 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 To begin with, in terms of the law of precedence, the decision by only the Hon'ble Apex Court or the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is bind…

M/S SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1004/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…r has taken one of the views permissible under law and the same is not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Reliance in this respect is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 423 (Kar.) wherein, on the issue that whether an assessee is eligible to claim balance of the additional depreciation, the Hon’ble Court held as follows:- “The language used in clause (iia) of the said section clearly provides that 'a further sum equal to 20 per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under cl…

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

…er Book- paragraphs 46 at 52-53). The orders of this Hon’ble Tribunal for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 were passed after taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited, (2016) 380 ITR 423 (Karn). Subsequently, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Shri T.P. Textiles (P.) Ltd., [2017] 394 ITR 483 (Mad) [Page 1 at Pp 4-8 of Compilation of Case Laws] has agreed with the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. The issue is thus covered in favour of the assessee. We find that this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 dealt with this…

DCIT- CC - 7(3), MUMBAI vs. ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 3283/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved/For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

…e assessee’s claim of additional deprecation was disallowed by the ld. A.O. The ld. CIT(A), on the other hand, allowed the additional claim of depreciation by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. 380 ITR 423 (Kar). 46. The Revenue is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). 47. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. As this issue has been squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (in ITA…

DCIT CC- 7(3), MUMBAI vs. ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 3282/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved/For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

…e assessee’s claim of additional deprecation was disallowed by the ld. A.O. The ld. CIT(A), on the other hand, allowed the additional claim of depreciation by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. 380 ITR 423 (Kar). 46. The Revenue is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). 47. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. As this issue has been squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (in ITA…

ACG ASSOCATION CAPSULES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 2384/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved/For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

…e assessee’s claim of additional deprecation was disallowed by the ld. A.O. The ld. CIT(A), on the other hand, allowed the additional claim of depreciation by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. 380 ITR 423 (Kar). 46. The Revenue is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). 47. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. As this issue has been squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (in ITA…

ACG ASSOCATION CAPSULES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 2383/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved/For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

…e assessee’s claim of additional deprecation was disallowed by the ld. A.O. The ld. CIT(A), on the other hand, allowed the additional claim of depreciation by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. 380 ITR 423 (Kar). 46. The Revenue is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). 47. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. As this issue has been squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (in ITA…

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 5796/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5559/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5576/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5560/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Hindalco Industries Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) 3Rd Floor, Century Bhawan, 9Th Floor, Room No.902, Vs. Dr. A.B Road, Worli, Old Cgo Building, M. K. Mumbai-400030. Road, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5796/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5769/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5770/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) बिधम/ Hindalco Industries Ltd. 9Th Floor, Room No.902, 3Rd Floor, Century Vs. Old Cgo Building, M. K. Bhawan, Dr. A.B Road, Road, Mumbai-400020. Worli, Mumbai-400030. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1201R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala A/W S. M Bandi Revenue By: Shri K. C. Selvamani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w S. M BandiFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153C

…s predecessor AO’s (i.e. allowing additional depreciation of spill-over depreciation) and also Ld CIT(A) found that the action of predecessor AO on the issue was legally sustainable in the light of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court decision in CIT Vs. Rital India (380 ITR 423); and the Ld. CIT(A) has decided ground no. 2.5 (supra) by observing as under: - “20. I have carefully considered the order of the AO and the submission of the appellant. In the original assessment order passed on the 21.11.2012 the AO allowed additional depreciation as claimed by the appellant. Appellant also submitted that in earlier years simi…

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 5770/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5559/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5576/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5560/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Hindalco Industries Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) 3Rd Floor, Century Bhawan, 9Th Floor, Room No.902, Vs. Dr. A.B Road, Worli, Old Cgo Building, M. K. Mumbai-400030. Road, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5796/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5769/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5770/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) बिधम/ Hindalco Industries Ltd. 9Th Floor, Room No.902, 3Rd Floor, Century Vs. Old Cgo Building, M. K. Bhawan, Dr. A.B Road, Road, Mumbai-400020. Worli, Mumbai-400030. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1201R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala A/W S. M Bandi Revenue By: Shri K. C. Selvamani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w S. M BandiFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153C

…s predecessor AO’s (i.e. allowing additional depreciation of spill-over depreciation) and also Ld CIT(A) found that the action of predecessor AO on the issue was legally sustainable in the light of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court decision in CIT Vs. Rital India (380 ITR 423); and the Ld. CIT(A) has decided ground no. 2.5 (supra) by observing as under: - “20. I have carefully considered the order of the AO and the submission of the appellant. In the original assessment order passed on the 21.11.2012 the AO allowed additional depreciation as claimed by the appellant. Appellant also submitted that in earlier years simi…

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 5769/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5559/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5576/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5560/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Hindalco Industries Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) 3Rd Floor, Century Bhawan, 9Th Floor, Room No.902, Vs. Dr. A.B Road, Worli, Old Cgo Building, M. K. Mumbai-400030. Road, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5796/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5769/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5770/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) बिधम/ Hindalco Industries Ltd. 9Th Floor, Room No.902, 3Rd Floor, Century Vs. Old Cgo Building, M. K. Bhawan, Dr. A.B Road, Road, Mumbai-400020. Worli, Mumbai-400030. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1201R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala A/W S. M Bandi Revenue By: Shri K. C. Selvamani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w S. M BandiFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153C

…s predecessor AO’s (i.e. allowing additional depreciation of spill-over depreciation) and also Ld CIT(A) found that the action of predecessor AO on the issue was legally sustainable in the light of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court decision in CIT Vs. Rital India (380 ITR 423); and the Ld. CIT(A) has decided ground no. 2.5 (supra) by observing as under: - “20. I have carefully considered the order of the AO and the submission of the appellant. In the original assessment order passed on the 21.11.2012 the AO allowed additional depreciation as claimed by the appellant. Appellant also submitted that in earlier years simi…

HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 5576/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5559/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5576/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5560/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Hindalco Industries Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) 3Rd Floor, Century Bhawan, 9Th Floor, Room No.902, Vs. Dr. A.B Road, Worli, Old Cgo Building, M. K. Mumbai-400030. Road, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5796/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5769/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 5770/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) बिधम/ Hindalco Industries Ltd. 9Th Floor, Room No.902, 3Rd Floor, Century Vs. Old Cgo Building, M. K. Bhawan, Dr. A.B Road, Road, Mumbai-400020. Worli, Mumbai-400030. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1201R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala A/W S. M Bandi Revenue By: Shri K. C. Selvamani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w S. M BandiFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153C

…s predecessor AO’s (i.e. allowing additional depreciation of spill-over depreciation) and also Ld CIT(A) found that the action of predecessor AO on the issue was legally sustainable in the light of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court decision in CIT Vs. Rital India (380 ITR 423); and the Ld. CIT(A) has decided ground no. 2.5 (supra) by observing as under: - “20. I have carefully considered the order of the AO and the submission of the appellant. In the original assessment order passed on the 21.11.2012 the AO allowed additional depreciation as claimed by the appellant. Appellant also submitted that in earlier years simi…

Showing 1–20 of 121 · Page 1 of 7