CIT v. Saraspur Mills Ltd.

75 ITR 533High Court1970#8106 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

ready for usesection 32asection 115osection 10(2)section 32(1)(iia)assessment order erroneousadditional depreciationsection 80hhsection 10(34)computer softwaresection 32(1)put to use

Judgments citing CIT v. Saraspur Mills Ltd.

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

C.A. No.-002948-002948 - 2023Supreme Court03 Oct 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Section 17Section 17(5)(c)Section 17(5)(d)

…like books and surgical instruments were expressly included in the definition of “plant”. In decided cases, the High Courts have rightly understood the meaning of the term “plant” in a wide sense. (See CIT v. Indian Turpentine and Rosin Co. Ltd. [(1970) 75 ITR 533]. 9. If the dictionary meaning of the word plant were to be taken into consideration on the principle that the literal construction of a statute must be adhered to unless the context renders it plain that such a construction cannot be put on the words in question — this is what is stated in Webster's Third New International Dictionary:…

PR. CIT CIRCLE-2, MUMBAI vs. BHARAT PRTROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 1601/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bharat Petroleum बिधम/ Pcit, Circle-2 Corporation Ltd. Room No.344, Aayakar Vs. Taxation Section, Bhavan, M. K. Road, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan 1, Mumbai-400020. 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb2902M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 21.02.2020 For Assessment Year [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”] 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistryFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 32A

…I of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and was, therefore, entitled to depreciation at the rate of 30 per cent. The view of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh reported as 220 ITR 408. 11.1 In the case of CIT vs. Saraspur Mills Ltd., 36 ITR 580 (Bom), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court explained the meaning of word “installed” as occurring in section 10(2)(vib) of 1922 Act. The Hon’ble Court held: 13 A.Y. 2016-17 Bharat Petroleum Corporation “The expression ‘installed’ is also used in the sense of ‘inducted or introduced’ and if that be the sense in which that expression is used, the…

BHARAT PRTROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT CIRCLE-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1602/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

…I of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and was, therefore, entitled to depreciation at the rate of 30 per cent. The view of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh reported as 220 ITR 408. 11.1 In the case of CIT vs. Saraspur Mills Ltd., 36 ITR 580 (Bom), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court explained the meaning of word “installed” as occurring in section 10(2)(vib) of 1922 Act. The Hon’ble Court held: “The expression ‘installed’ is also used in the sense of ‘inducted or introduced’ and if that be the sense in which that expression is used, there is nothing inconsistent in the context in…

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT, CIRCLR-2,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1600/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

…I of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and was, therefore, entitled to depreciation at the rate of 30 per cent. The view of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh reported as 220 ITR 408. 11.1 In the case of CIT vs. Saraspur Mills Ltd., 36 ITR 580 (Bom), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court explained the meaning of word “installed” as occurring in section 10(2)(vib) of 1922 Act. The Hon’ble Court held: “The expression ‘installed’ is also used in the sense of ‘inducted or introduced’ and if that be the sense in which that expression is used, there is nothing inconsistent in the context in…

DEGUSTIBUS HOSPITALITY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 525/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Sunil A DesaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Janardhanan

…of "plant". In decided cases, the High Courts have rightly understood the meaning of the term "plant" in a wide sense. - Jarrold (Inspector of Taxes) v. John Good & Sons Ltd. (1963) 1 WLR 214 (CA) relied on & CIT v. Indian Turpentine and Rosin Co. Ltd. (1970) 75 ITR 533 (All) approved. 4 ITA No.525/Mum/2017. M/s.Degustibus Hospitality Private Limited. The High Court was right in not accepting the reasoning of the Tribunal based on the rates relating to depreciation under S. 10(2)(vi) and the assessee having claimed that the sanitary and pipe line fittings fell within the meaning of "furniture and fittings" in r…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NALWA STEEL AND POWER LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 238/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 238/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Nalwa Steel & Power Ltd., Circle-13(1), 1213, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi Delhi-110015 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn3209L Assessee By : Sh. V. K. Tulsiyan, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr & Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 12.10.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xvi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR &
Section 115J

…chinery. Further reliance is placed on the case laws of Mihir Textile Ltd. vs. CIT (2001) 252 ITR 686, Tribeni Tissues Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 92 (Cal), CIT vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (2007) 289 ITR 261 (P&H), CIT vs. Indian Turpentine and Rosin Co. Ltd. (1070) 75 ITR 533 (All) and of Ahmedabad Bench decision in Raw Flints (P) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer (1987) 21 5 Nalwa Steel Power Ltd. ITD 207 which held that electrical installations are an integral part of manufacturing process and cannot be divorced from 'plant and machinery'. 3.2 I have considered the submissions made by the authorized representative of the…

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…of plant and machinery itself and are, therefore, entitled to benefit/depreciation/ allowances available to plant and machinery: (i) CIT v Tajmahal Hotel : 82 ITR 44 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Tribeni Tissues Ltd: 206 ITR 92 (Cal) (iii) CIT v. Indian Turpentine Ltd. : 75 ITR 533 (All.) (iv) CIT v. Jagadees Chandran :75 ITR 697 (Mad.) (v) CIT v. Tea Estate: 207 ITR 311 (Cal) Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 182 of 484 He further submitted that The supervisory/administrative offices lo…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NALWA STEEL & POWER LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4559/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N. Mishraa.Y. : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle 13(1), M/S Nalwa Steel & Power New Delhi Vs. Limited, Room No. 406, Cr Building, 28, Najafgarh Road, Ip Estate, New Delhi New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. UC Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ry. Further reliance is placed on the case laws of Mihir Textile Ltd. vs. CIT (2001) 252 ITR 686, Tribeni Tissues Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 92 (Cal), CIT vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (2007) 289 ITR 261 (P&H), CIT vs. Indian Turpentine and Rosin Co. Ltd. (1070) 75 ITR 533 (All) and of Ahmedabad Bench decision in Raw Flints (P) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer (1987) 21 ITD 207 which held that electrical installations are an integral part of manufacturing process and cannot be divorced from 'plant and machinery'. 3.2 I have considered the submissions made by the authorized representative of the appellant company. T…

M/S DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA-374/2003HC Delhi23 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Mr Simran MehtaFor Respondent: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel for
Section 115Section 116Section 260ASection 32A(1)

…g, interlocking, etc. are not ready. It is not advisable to run the coal mill without such interlocking.” 15.4 The AO referred to various decisions in CIT v. Saraspur Mills Ltd.: (1959) 36 ITR 580 (Bom.), CIT v. Indian Turpentine and Rosin Co.: (1970) 75 ITR 533 (All.), CIT v. Sri Rama Vilas Service (Pvt.) Ltd.: (1960) 38 ITR 25 (Mad.) and CIT v. Saurashtra Wire-Healds Manufacturing Co. P. Ltd.: (1968) 67 ITR 524 (Guj.) for interpretation of the word ‘installed’ and he concluded that the word ‘installed’ “refers to a stage when the asset is ready for use”. He further held that the plant and machinery…

M/S DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA - 374 / 2003HC Delhi23 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Mr Simran MehtaFor Respondent: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel for
Section 115Section 116Section 260ASection 32A(1)

…g, interlocking, etc. are not ready. It is not advisable to run the coal mill without such interlocking.” 15.4 The AO referred to various decisions in CIT v. Saraspur Mills Ltd.: (1959) 36 ITR 580 (Bom.), CIT v. Indian Turpentine and Rosin Co.: (1970) 75 ITR 533 (All.), CIT v. Sri Rama Vilas Service (Pvt.) Ltd.: (1960) 38 ITR 25 (Mad.) and CIT v. Saurashtra Wire-Healds Manufacturing Co. P. Ltd.: (1968) 67 ITR 524 (Guj.) for interpretation of the word ‘installed’ and he concluded that the word ‘installed’ “refers to a stage when the asset is ready for use”. He further held that the plant and machinery…

M/S DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA/374/2003HC Delhi23 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Mr Simran MehtaFor Respondent: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel for
Section 115Section 116Section 260ASection 32A(1)

…g, interlocking, etc. are not ready. It is not advisable to run the coal mill without such interlocking.” 15.4 The AO referred to various decisions in CIT v. Saraspur Mills Ltd.: (1959) 36 ITR 580 (Bom.), CIT v. Indian Turpentine and Rosin Co.: (1970) 75 ITR 533 (All.), CIT v. Sri Rama Vilas Service (Pvt.) Ltd.: (1960) 38 ITR 25 (Mad.) and CIT v. Saurashtra Wire-Healds Manufacturing Co. P. Ltd.: (1968) 67 ITR 524 (Guj.) for interpretation of the word ‘installed’ and he concluded that the word ‘installed’ “refers to a stage when the asset is ready for use”. He further held that the plant and machinery…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. D.V.S. STEELS & ALLOYS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4238/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-4238/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2006-07)

Section 32Section 32(1)

…ical installations can in the alternative be capitalized with Plant and Machinery and normal depreciation and additional deprecation can be allowed on both the items taken together. The decisions in CIT Vs. Tata Mills 118 ITR 496 and CIT Vs. Indian Turpentine 75 ITR 533 are also relied in this context. To conclude, as the system was installed only after 1/4/2005 and put to use on 22/6/2005. Upon issue of sealing certificate there is no justification for denial of normal and additional depreciation as claimed by the appellant in the return filed for the aforesaid year.” 9. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing…

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…ne: - CIT vs. Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd. : 166 ITR 66 (SC) - CIT vs. Birla Jute & Industries Ltd.: 260 ITR 55 (Cal) - CIT vs. Oswal Woollen Mill Ltd.: 289 ITR 261 (P&H) - CIT vs. Metalman Auto (P.) Ltd: 336 ITR 434 (P&H) - CIT v. India Turpentine & Rosin Co. Ltd.: 75 ITR 533 (All.) - DCIT vs. UAL Industries: 31 taxmann.com 111 (Kolkata - Trib.) (TM) - Ghaziabad footwear (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT: 142 Taxman 18 (Del Tri.) - Madhu Industries Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. ITO: 132 TTJ 233 (Ahd) In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that meters acquired and installed by the appellant were capable of performing specific function…

THE TATA IRON AND STEEL CO.LTD., BIHAR vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE,PATNA

The appeals are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs

C.A. No.-005421-005421 - 1999Supreme Court02 Mar 2005
For Respondent: Collector of Central Excise, Patna
Section 11Section 35L

…word is used which will justify in holding that the word ‘‘plant’’ in Section 10, sub-section (2), clause (vi-b) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 was not intended to include vehicles. [(See Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Bombay v. Saraspur Mills Ltd., (1959) 36 ITR 580 at 581)]. As per P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law Lexicon, Second Edition 1997, the expression ‘installed’ did not necessarily mean ‘fixed in position’, but was also used in the sense of ‘intended or introduced’. As held in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mir Mohammad Ali, AIR (1964) SC (1693) at (1697) = (1964) 53 ITR 165, installed would certainly mean ‘t…

CIT v. Saraspur Mills Ltd. (75 ITR 533) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax