CIT v. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd.

380 ITR 428High Court2016#10606 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd.

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

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 DCIT, Circle 11(1), Vs. Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi H-3, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Assessee by: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate, Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Date of Hearing: 05.07.2022 Date of 23.08.2022 pronouncement O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA The appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order dated 16.10.2018 of the Ld. C…

AARTI INDUSTRIAL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3695/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bledcit – 15(1)(1) V. M/S. Arti Industries Ltd., Room No. 470, 4Th Floor 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund-Goregoaon Link Road Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(W), Mumbai -400080 Pan: Aabca2787L Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 145/Mum/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita.No. 3583/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15)] M/S. Arti Industries Ltd., V. Dcit – 15(1)(1) 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor Room No. 470, 4Th Floor Mulund-Goregoaon Link Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund(W), Mumbai -400080 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabca2787L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By : Ms. Shailaja Rai & Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80

…he Assessment year 2009-10. We have perused the orders of the Tribunal for the Assessment year 2009-10 and find that the claim of the assessee has been accepted, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Rittal India (P.) Ltd. [380 ITR 428]. Respectfully following the same, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act.” 12. Since, the coordinate Bench has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own cases, we respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench, set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT…

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 784/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)
Section 10Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…r less than 180 days as against that which was used for 180 days or more. Amendment is clarificatory in nature and not prospective. The Memorandum only clarifies as to how the unamended provision had to be read all along. CIT vs. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 428 (Kar) (HC): The return of income was filed for the assessment year 2010-11 declaring the total income of Rs.4,26,76,850/-. In the draft assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C dated 14.3.2014, the Assessing Officer has determined the total income at Rs.7,84,12,208/- as there was a disallowance under Section 32 (1) (iia) of Rs…

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 301/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

…td. (54 SOT 54 (Delhi) I.T.A. Nos. 301 & 303/Coch/2017 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. In our opinion this issue was considered by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT (LTU) and Another vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) (380 ITR 428) wherein it was held as under: “Additional depreciation allowable under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is a one-time benefit to encourage industrialization and the relevant provisions have to be construed reasonably and purposively. The additional depreciation is allowed in the year of purchase and if in the year of purchase, the…

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 303/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

…td. (54 SOT 54 (Delhi) I.T.A. Nos. 301 & 303/Coch/2017 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. In our opinion this issue was considered by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT (LTU) and Another vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) (380 ITR 428) wherein it was held as under: “Additional depreciation allowable under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is a one-time benefit to encourage industrialization and the relevant provisions have to be construed reasonably and purposively. The additional depreciation is allowed in the year of purchase and if in the year of purchase, the…

AARTI INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 7039/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena & Dr. Kailash P. Gaikwad
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” ” ” ” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं संजय गग" ,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././ITA No.7039/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण व आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण व िनधा"रण वष"ष"ष"ष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण व Aarti Industries Limited Addl. CIT-Range-10(3) 71, 2nd Floor, Udyog Kshetra, Mumbai. Mulund Goregaon Link Rd. Vs. Off, LBS Road, Mulund (W) Mumbai-400 080…

SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/CHNY/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

…ciation which was restricted to 50% of the eligible amount had to be allowed in the impugned assessment year. In support of this, ld. Authorised Representative placed reliance on judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd 380 ITR 428. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the 34. authorities below. 35. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute, that the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee was balance of what remained out of such depreciation claimed in the immediate preceding…

SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2013[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

…ciation which was restricted to 50% of the eligible amount had to be allowed in the impugned assessment year. In support of this, ld. Authorised Representative placed reliance on judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd 380 ITR 428. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the 34. authorities below. 35. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute, that the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee was balance of what remained out of such depreciation claimed in the immediate preceding…

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SUNDARAM FASTERNERS LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 675/CHNY/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

…ciation which was restricted to 50% of the eligible amount had to be allowed in the impugned assessment year. In support of this, ld. Authorised Representative placed reliance on judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd 380 ITR 428. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the 34. authorities below. 35. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute, that the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee was balance of what remained out of such depreciation claimed in the immediate preceding…

SUNDRAM FASTENERS LIMITED,,CHENNAI vs. ADDL.CIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 591/CHNY/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

…ciation which was restricted to 50% of the eligible amount had to be allowed in the impugned assessment year. In support of this, ld. Authorised Representative placed reliance on judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd 380 ITR 428. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the 34. authorities below. 35. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute, that the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee was balance of what remained out of such depreciation claimed in the immediate preceding…

CIT v. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (380 ITR 428) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax