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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited?

121 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited (380 ITR 423), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 32(1)(iia), Section 143(3), Section 32(1), Section 143(1), Section 14A.

CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited (380 ITR 423)

The Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/S.Appollo Tyres Ltd

ITA/184/2015HC Kerala02 Aug 2021

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

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 MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1943 ITA NO. 184 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER IN IT (TP)A 2/2014 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT/S: M/S.APPOLLO TYRES LTD., SHANMUGAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. BY ADVS. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKO…

DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1376/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan

Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

…ars. It was claim of the assessee that additional depreciation should be allowed, if conditions prescribed for claiming additional depreciation are fulfilled. We find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rittal India Pvt .Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 423 (Kar) has considered an identical issue and held that if plant and machinery is eligible for additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) and such plant and machinery is put to use for less than 180 days in said financial year, then balance of additional depreciation can be claimed in subsequent years. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the cases of Br…

Sundaram Clayton Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1356/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan

Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

…ars. It was claim of the assessee that additional depreciation should be allowed, if conditions prescribed for claiming additional depreciation are fulfilled. We find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rittal India Pvt .Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 423 (Kar) has considered an identical issue and held that if plant and machinery is eligible for additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) and such plant and machinery is put to use for less than 180 days in said financial year, then balance of additional depreciation can be claimed in subsequent years. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the cases of Br…

Sundaram Clayton Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1355/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan

Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

…ars. It was claim of the assessee that additional depreciation should be allowed, if conditions prescribed for claiming additional depreciation are fulfilled. We find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rittal India Pvt .Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 423 (Kar) has considered an identical issue and held that if plant and machinery is eligible for additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) and such plant and machinery is put to use for less than 180 days in said financial year, then balance of additional depreciation can be claimed in subsequent years. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the cases of Br…

DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1254/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan

Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

…ars. It was claim of the assessee that additional depreciation should be allowed, if conditions prescribed for claiming additional depreciation are fulfilled. We find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rittal India Pvt .Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 423 (Kar) has considered an identical issue and held that if plant and machinery is eligible for additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) and such plant and machinery is put to use for less than 180 days in said financial year, then balance of additional depreciation can be claimed in subsequent years. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the cases of Br…

DCIT-9(3((2), Mumbai vs. Garware Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4146/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bledcit– 9(3)(2) V. M/S. Garware Industries Ltd., Room No. 418, 4Th Floor 50-A, Garware House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Swami Nityanand Marg Mumbai – 400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan: Aaacy5779P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta : Shri T.S. Khalsa Department By Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.05.2021

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 32(1)(iia)

…n which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days.” 8. As can be seen from the above decision the Hon'ble Madras High Court, following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (380 ITR 423) and also considering the amendment brought in by way of proviso to section 32(1) wherein it has been specifically stated that 50% of additional depreciation which was not allowed in the preceding assessment year shall be allowed in the subsequent assessment year, concluded that the assessee is entitled for additional 50% depreciation in the asse…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Premier Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3554/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumardcit- 3(2)(2), M/S Premier Ltd. Room No.674, 6Th Floor, 58, Nariman Bhavan, Nariman Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaact5523G Vs. Appellant Respondent : Ms. Shreeleela Pardeshi (Dr) Appellant By Revenue By : Ms. Shefali (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2021 Order

For Respondent: Ms. Shreeleela Pardeshi (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT, Madurai, Vs. T.P. Textiles (P) Ltd. (2017) 79 taxman.com 411 (Madras) and that of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 423 (Kar). We thus being of the considered 6 ITA No. 3554 Mum 2019-M/s Premier Ltd. view that no infirmity arises from the order of the CIT(A) who had rightly deleted the disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.1,36,32,835/-, uphold his order to the said extent. The Ground of appeal No. 4 is dismissed. 12. Taking the consistent view and res…

Shreegopal Concrete Private Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-9(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 708/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara)

Section 250

…ited. 4. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has recorded in his order that the issue in question is covered by the following case laws: (a) Universal Cables Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 04/Kol/2012, order dated 14.01.2015. (b) CIT vs. Rittal India Private Limited (2016) 380 ITR 423 (Kar). (c) M/s. Automotive Coaches & Components Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1789/Mds/2014, order dated 12.02.2016. (d) DCIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. [2012] 24 taxmann.com 189 (Delhi ITAT). (e) Apollo Tyres vs. ACIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 337 (Cochin Tribunal). (f) CIT vs. Shri T.P. Textiles (P) Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 483 (Mad). 5. The ld. CIT(A) has not fol…