CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited

380 ITR 423High Court2016#869 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 367,154 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

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 2112/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…per 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, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 2111/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…per 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, Circle-11(1), New Delhi vs. Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 448/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 32

…ear to 50% on account of usage. The so earned incentive must be made available in the subsequent year. The overall deduction of depreciation u/s 32 shall definitely not exceed the total cost of plant and machinery.” 7.2 In CIT vs. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 423 (Kar) the facts were that the assessee, an existing industrial undertaking acquired and installed new plant and machinery after 01.10.2006 and before 31.03.2007. As new machinery was put to use for business purposes for period of less than 180 days in AY 2007-08, the assessee claimed 50% of additional 20% depreciation (i.e. 10% additional depreci…

Classic Industries and Exports Limited (Formerly Known As Classic Auto Tubes Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Spl. Range-2, New Delhi

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

ITA 9196/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Cit (A) That The Appellant Had Made Complete Disclosure Regarding The Claim Of Addl. Depreciation Before The Ao In Its Return Of Income/ Tax Audit Report For The Year Under Assessment I.E. Ay 2013-14 & That The Said Claim Had Been Allowed By The Ao In Assessment Proceedings For The Preceding Assessment Years I.E. Ay 2011- 12 & 2012-13, After Considering Full Facts & Detailed Submissions Made By The Appellant. The Learned Cit (A) Relied Upon The Decision Of Cit (A) In Assessee'S Case For Ay 2014-15 In Re-Opening The Assessment. .

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Giri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Senior DR
Section 147Section 32(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.9196 /Del./2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) Classic Industries and Exports Ltd., vs. ACIT, (formerly known as Classic Auto Tubes Ltd.), Spl. Range 2, 414/1, 4th Floor, DDA Commercial Complex, New Delhi. District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110 058. (PAN : AACCC6993K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri M.K. Giri, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 11.07.2022 Date of Order : 15.07.2022 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT…

Vibracoustic India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-9, New Delhi

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 5340/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmavibracoustic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit R-561, Shankar Road, Special Range-9 New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi - 110011

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32(2)(iia)

…ase of DCIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. reported in [2012] 139 ITD 628, decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hinduja Foundries reported in 281 Taxman 448 (Mad), decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India (P) Ltd. reported in 380 ITR 423 (Kar). He therefore submitted that in view of the aforesaid decisions, the claim of the assessee for the additional depreciation be allowed. 8. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities and further submitted that provision for deduction of additional depreciation is for the new plant and machinery which has been added…

ACIT, Circle-10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Philips Carbon Black Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2628/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 2628/Kol/2019 Assessment Year : 2013-14 ACIT, Circle-10(2), Kolkata Vs. M/s Philips Carbon Black Ltd. (PAN: AABCP 5762 E) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 11.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement 05.07.2022 For the Appellant Shri Ashim Choudhury, Advocate Shri Kinjal Buria, ACA For the Respondent Shri Manish Kanojia, CITDR Shri Tushar Dhawal Singh, CITDR ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner…

Vibracoustic India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-9, New Delhi

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 5339/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmavibracoustic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit R-561, Shankar Road, Special Range-9 New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32(2)(iia)

…ase of DCIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. reported in [2012] 139 ITD 628, decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hinduja Foundries reported in 281 Taxman 448 (Mad), decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India (P) Ltd. reported in 380 ITR 423 (Kar). He therefore submitted that in view of the aforesaid decisions, the claim of the assessee for the additional depreciation be allowed. 8. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities and further submitted that provision for deduction of additional depreciation is for the new plant and machinery which has been added…

DCIT Cent, Cir-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1799/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sidhharth Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 32Section 4

…l depreciation in the succeeding assessment year. 6.5 Further, in the case of Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) has taken similar view following the decision of the the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (380 ITR 423). 6.6 During the appellate proceedings the appellant filed Revised working of depreciation allowable to the appellant for the assessment year 2013-14 placed at page number 104-108 of Paper Book. Disregarding the submissions made by the appellant, the AO in the order u/s 143(3), held that the claim lodged in the course of assessment proceedings w…

Ashok Narayan Bhosale, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1501/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1501/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Narayan Bhosale, The Deputy Commissioner Of Ashok Narayan Bhosle Bunglow At Vs Income Tax, Kaveri Nagar, Pratham Housing Cirlce-8, Pune. Society, Wakad, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaspb 3588 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/03/2022

Section 1Section 10Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 32

…Tribunal on the issue has held as follows: “……………..In this judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, there is reference made to the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., 380 ITR 423 and the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri T.P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd., 394 ITR 483 and in both these cases, it has been unanimously observed and held that the assessee can claim balance depreciation in the subsequent assessment year. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court was of the opi…

Zf Steering Gear (India) Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -1 (1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 309/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…r was for less than 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 CIT & Anor Vs. Ritta1 India Pvt. Ltd. Reported 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, i.e., 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, 200…

Jt. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3764/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…laim has been allowed by the Hon’ble High Court in the succeeding AY where the asset was purchased and put to use for less than 180 days. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court also relied on the decision rendered by the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (380 ITR 423) and Madras High Court ruling in T.P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (supra), to hold that amendment made vide insertion of third proviso to Sec.32(1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of G…

DCIT- CC- 1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2873/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…laim has been allowed by the Hon’ble High Court in the succeeding AY where the asset was purchased and put to use for less than 180 days. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court also relied on the decision rendered by the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (380 ITR 423) and Madras High Court ruling in T.P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (supra), to hold that amendment made vide insertion of third proviso to Sec.32(1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of G…

DCIT -CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2872/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…laim has been allowed by the Hon’ble High Court in the succeeding AY where the asset was purchased and put to use for less than 180 days. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court also relied on the decision rendered by the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (380 ITR 423) and Madras High Court ruling in T.P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (supra), to hold that amendment made vide insertion of third proviso to Sec.32(1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of G…

DCIT - CC - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2871/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…laim has been allowed by the Hon’ble High Court in the succeeding AY where the asset was purchased and put to use for less than 180 days. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court also relied on the decision rendered by the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (380 ITR 423) and Madras High Court ruling in T.P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (supra), to hold that amendment made vide insertion of third proviso to Sec.32(1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of G…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2462/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…laim has been allowed by the Hon’ble High Court in the succeeding AY where the asset was purchased and put to use for less than 180 days. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court also relied on the decision rendered by the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (380 ITR 423) and Madras High Court ruling in T.P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (supra), to hold that amendment made vide insertion of third proviso to Sec.32(1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of G…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2461/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…laim has been allowed by the Hon’ble High Court in the succeeding AY where the asset was purchased and put to use for less than 180 days. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court also relied on the decision rendered by the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (380 ITR 423) and Madras High Court ruling in T.P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (supra), to hold that amendment made vide insertion of third proviso to Sec.32(1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of G…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 1413/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…laim has been allowed by the Hon’ble High Court in the succeeding AY where the asset was purchased and put to use for less than 180 days. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court also relied on the decision rendered by the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (380 ITR 423) and Madras High Court ruling in T.P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (supra), to hold that amendment made vide insertion of third proviso to Sec.32(1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of G…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1412/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…laim has been allowed by the Hon’ble High Court in the succeeding AY where the asset was purchased and put to use for less than 180 days. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court also relied on the decision rendered by the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (380 ITR 423) and Madras High Court ruling in T.P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (supra), to hold that amendment made vide insertion of third proviso to Sec.32(1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of G…

Classic Auto Tubes Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 2, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7815/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Classic Auto Tubes Ltd. Addl. Cit 414/1, 4Th Floor, Dda Special Range-2 Commercial Complex, District New Delhi Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc6993K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M. K. Giri, Adv Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr

Section 3Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Vs Classic Auto Tubes Ltd. Addl. CIT 414/1, 4th Floor, DDA Special Range-2 Commercial Complex, District New Delhi Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi PAN: AACCC6993K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. M. K. Giri, Adv Respondent by Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement 11.11.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 19/10/2017 passed by CIT(A)-2…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Kitex Garments Ltd

ITA/138/2014HC Kerala05 Aug 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1943 ITA NO. 138 OF 2014 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 75/2012 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 COCHIN. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: M/S. KITEX GARMENTS LTD. 91,PATTIMATTOM,KIZHAKKAMBALAM. CHOORAKODU, ERANAKUALM - 683562 BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.JOSE JOSEPH CHEMPLAYIL SMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVI SRI.R.SREEJITH K…