CIT v. Shan Finance

231 ITR 308Supreme Court of India1998#1236 most cited

What is CIT v. Shan Finance authority for?

A financier owning machinery is entitled to investment allowance even if the machinery is used by its lessee for production purposes.

91

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shan Finance · 231 ITR 308 · Supreme Court · investment allowance · machinery · lessee · financier · production

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 37(1)Section 92CA(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 28(va)section 41(4)depreciation on softwaresection 2(42a)section 43(6)(c)section 32anon-compete feesection 43(6)put to useblock of assetsopening wdvsection 41(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Shan Finance

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ausom Enterprise Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 857/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)

…'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sm. Tarulata Shyam Vs. CIT (1971) 108 ITR 345 (SC) held that there is no scope for importing in the statute words which are not there. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shann Finance Private Limited (1998) 231 ITR 308 (SC) went on to hold that in interpreting statute, court cannot proceed to make good the deficiencies if there be any. The court interpret the statute as it stands, and in case of doubt, in a manner favorable to taxpayer. Thus, we find no provision in the statute on the basis of which it can be held that the interest income which forms part of th…

Sh. Sanjay Dalmia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3795/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…ITA No. 3795 to 3801/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2012-13 Sanjay Dalmia, Vs DCIT INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―G‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3795 to 3801/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2012-13) Sanjay Dalmia, Vs. DCIT, 2nd Floor, Indraprakash Building, Central Circle-2, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AADPD9438N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Adv Revenue by: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing 28/09/2017 Date of pronouncement 05/10/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHA…

DCIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. Mhatre Electronics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 6470/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 144

…endar months and certainly not assessment year. Needless to mention that if there are two interpretations then the interpretation favourable to the assessee will have to be adopted as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT v. Shaan Finance (P) Ltd (1998) 231 ITR 308 (SC). Thus, the beneficial provision to assessee will have to be adopted. Further, i the case of Jayakumari and Dilharkumari v.CIT (No.3) (1987) 165 ITR 792 (Karn), it was observed as under (page 795): “Law to be applied is that in force in assessment year.- Though the subject of the charge is the income of the previous year, the law to be appli…

Mhatre Electronics P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 6349/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 144

…endar months and certainly not assessment year. Needless to mention that if there are two interpretations then the interpretation favourable to the assessee will have to be adopted as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT v. Shaan Finance (P) Ltd (1998) 231 ITR 308 (SC). Thus, the beneficial provision to assessee will have to be adopted. Further, i the case of Jayakumari and Dilharkumari v.CIT (No.3) (1987) 165 ITR 792 (Karn), it was observed as under (page 795): “Law to be applied is that in force in assessment year.- Though the subject of the charge is the income of the previous year, the law to be appli…

M/S. Ujjal Transport Agency, Asansol vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle-Xvi, Kolkata

In the result, assessee's CO is partly allowed”

ITA 1601/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1601/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Ujjal Transport Agency, -Vs- Dcit, Central, Circle-Xvi, Kolkata G.T.Road(East), Murgasole Asansol Pan : Aaafu 6732 H] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : A. K. Tibrewal, Fca Amit Agarwal, Adv. For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2014 Order

For Appellant: A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 263Section 32(1)(iia)

…not there comes up. and it is, therefore, a production of coal. The Division Bench followed its own decision in the later case of Khalsa Bros. v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 185. Mr. Bajoria also relied on the interesting case of CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 3081 where the Supreme Court 6 7 Ujjal Transport Agency A.Yr.07-08 opined that a financier owning machinery might still be entitled to investment allowance even if the machinery is actually used by its lessee for the purpose of production. Going on the language of sub-sections (1) and (2) of the said section, the Supreme Court found, on an accurate…

JCIT (OSD), CC-Xx, Kolkata vs. M/S G. S. Atwal & Co.(Engg) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

ITA 1516/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145A

…oal. The Division Bench allowed its own decision in the later case of Khalsa Bros vs. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 185. MR. Bajoria also relied on the interesting case of CIT v. Shann finance (P) Ltd [1998] ITA No. 1146, 1138/Kol/2012-C-AM Integrated Coal Mining Ltd 23 231 ITR 308 where the Supreme Court opined that a financier owning machinery might still be entitled to investment allowance even if the machinery is actually used by its lessee for the purpose of production.” It is also important to note that similar issue is also covered by the order of ITAT in the case of Integrated Coal Mining Limited Vs DCIT in ITA 114…

DCIT 17(2), Mumbai vs. Ateev V Gala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1906/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit-17(2), Ateev V. Gala, R. No.217, 02Nd Floor, 575/A, The Orient Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Jamshed Road, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Matunga Mumbai-400019 Pan No.Aalpg6039N (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 10(2)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 64(2)

…n the ld.AR relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court 5 Shri Ateev V. Gala in the case of CIT vs Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co Ltd 196 ITR 149 (SC). He has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Shaan Finance (P) Ltd 231 ITR 308 (SC). 7. With regard to applicability of provisions of section 56(2) of the Act, the ld.R AR submitted that an HUF is a conglomeration of relatives as defined u/s 56(2)(v) of the Act. Section 56(2)(v) should be interpreted in such a way that interpretation must avoid absurdity. The ld.AR relied upon the following judgments, for this proposition:…

M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1951/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…t was explicitly held that as per sec.32 of the IT Act, a "Financer" satisfies the "ownership" & "user" test for depreciation. It is to be noted here that in arriving at this conclusion, the SC relied upon the decision in the case of Shaan Finance Pvt. Ltd. [231 ITR 308 (SC)] in which case it was clarified that the phrase 'used for the purpose of business' does not necessarily require use of the asset by the assessee itself. 2.11. In light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement it is clear that in a leasing transaction, the lessor, who is the owner of the asset, is entitled to depreciation under section 32 of…

M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1950/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…t was explicitly held that as per sec.32 of the IT Act, a "Financer" satisfies the "ownership" & "user" test for depreciation. It is to be noted here that in arriving at this conclusion, the SC relied upon the decision in the case of Shaan Finance Pvt. Ltd. [231 ITR 308 (SC)] in which case it was clarified that the phrase 'used for the purpose of business' does not necessarily require use of the asset by the assessee itself. 2.11. In light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement it is clear that in a leasing transaction, the lessor, who is the owner of the asset, is entitled to depreciation under section 32 of…

D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata vs. M/S Integrated Coal Mining Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 1758/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 14ASection 43B

…was not there comes up, and it is, therefore, a production of coal. The Division Bench followed its own decision in the later case of Khalsa Bros v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 185. Mr. Bajoria also relied on the interesting case of CIT v. Shann Finance (P) Ltd [1998] 231 ITR 308 where the Supreme Court opined that a financier owning machinery might still be entitled to investment allowance even if the machinery is actually used by its lessee for the purpose of production. Going on the language of sub-sections (1) and (2) of the said section, the Supreme Court found, on an accurate assessment of the language ( we say this…

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 13/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…f Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Apex Cooperation Ltd. 254 ITR 98, wherein the lessor was held to be eligible for investment allowance and extra shift depreciation. Further reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision of Shaan Finance 231 ITR 308 (SC) and Development Credit Bank Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd. of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Further, the assessee also relied on CBDT Circular no. 2/01 dated 9.2.2001 issued by CBDT. The AO examined the lease agreement and for the following reasons concluded that assessee company had entered into a finance arrangement under the guise of lease…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Money Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5854/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…f Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Apex Cooperation Ltd. 254 ITR 98, wherein the lessor was held to be eligible for investment allowance and extra shift depreciation. Further reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision of Shaan Finance 231 ITR 308 (SC) and Development Credit Bank Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd. of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Further, the assessee also relied on CBDT Circular no. 2/01 dated 9.2.2001 issued by CBDT. The AO examined the lease agreement and for the following reasons concluded that assessee company had entered into a finance arrangement under the guise of lease…

Ge Money Financial Services (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4235/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…f Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Apex Cooperation Ltd. 254 ITR 98, wherein the lessor was held to be eligible for investment allowance and extra shift depreciation. Further reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision of Shaan Finance 231 ITR 308 (SC) and Development Credit Bank Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd. of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Further, the assessee also relied on CBDT Circular no. 2/01 dated 9.2.2001 issued by CBDT. The AO examined the lease agreement and for the following reasons concluded that assessee company had entered into a finance arrangement under the guise of lease…

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4206/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…f Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Apex Cooperation Ltd. 254 ITR 98, wherein the lessor was held to be eligible for investment allowance and extra shift depreciation. Further reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision of Shaan Finance 231 ITR 308 (SC) and Development Credit Bank Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd. of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Further, the assessee also relied on CBDT Circular no. 2/01 dated 9.2.2001 issued by CBDT. The AO examined the lease agreement and for the following reasons concluded that assessee company had entered into a finance arrangement under the guise of lease…

Ge Countrywide Consumer Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1)

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1357/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…f Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Apex Cooperation Ltd. 254 ITR 98, wherein the lessor was held to be eligible for investment allowance and extra shift depreciation. Further reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision of Shaan Finance 231 ITR 308 (SC) and Development Credit Bank Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd. of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Further, the assessee also relied on CBDT Circular no. 2/01 dated 9.2.2001 issued by CBDT. The AO examined the lease agreement and for the following reasons concluded that assessee company had entered into a finance arrangement under the guise of lease…

M/S Kisan Gramin Bhandaran vs. ITO

Appeal is allowed

ITA 604/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O. P, Kant Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kisan Gramin Bhandaran, Vs. Ito, Asalatpur Jarai, Chandausi, Chandausi (Up) (Up) (Pan: Aaifk1137C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Department By: Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18 .04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 27:06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Ground That The Learned Cit(Appeals) Was Justified In Upholding Rental Income Received On Letting Out Warehouses Under The Head “Income From House Property” Against The Business Income Shown By The Assessee. 2. Heard & Considered The Arguments Advanced By The Parties In View Of Orders Of The Authorities Below, Material Available On Record & The Decisions Relied Upon. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee, A Partnership Firm Had Disclosed Rental Income Of Rs.8,11,046 As Business Income In Its Profit & Loss Account & Net Income Of Rs.2,325 Was Shown As Business Income After

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…that the case of assessee is also fully supported by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Goel Builders – 331 ITR 344 (All). He also placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Shaan Finance Pvt. Ltd. – 231 ITR 308 (SC); ii) Vora Warehousing (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT – 70 ITD 518; iii) Shreeji Exhibitors Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 640/M/2014 dated 14.8.2015; iv) M/s. Bhuvan Leasing & Infra-structure Vs. ITO – ITA No. 4977/Mumbai/2006 dated 10.6.2015. 6. The Learned Senior DR on the other hand placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the Lea…

M/S Bharti Hexacom Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and department’s appeal dismissed

ITA 3394/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra: & Shri A.T. Varkey:

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla CA &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 194HSection 194JSection 234BSection 35ASection 40Section 54

…ITO out sourcing agreement, ld. counsel submitted that assessee was paying only service charges and no payments were made with respect to assets. 80. Ld. counsel relied on following decisions: - ICDS Ltd. Vs. CIT 350 ITR 527; - CIT Vs. Shaan Finance (I) Ltd. 231 ITR 308 (SC) - CIT Vs. Reetu Finlease P. Ltd. 286 ITR 652 (Del.). 81. Ld. counsel submitted that in the case of ICDS Ltd. (supra), the company in course of its business had given on lease plant & machinery to its customers for the use by the customer for its business. It was held that such company was for the purpose of section 32, the owner and was an…

Executive Centre India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 6179/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.K.MutsaddiFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar
Section 143(3)Section 35D

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘ई’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.6179/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Executive Centre India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. JCIT(OSD)-8(1), Mumbai Level 2, Kalpataru Sunergy, Opp. Grand Hyatt. Vakola, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-55 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AABCE 9675 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.K.Mutsaddi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Javed Akhtar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 12…

DCIT, Circle-6, Kolkata vs. M/S. Integrated Coal Mining Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1138/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri J.P Khaitan, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…efore, a production of coal. The Division Bench followed its own decision in the later case of Khalsa Bros v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 185. Mr. Bajoria also relied on the interesting case of CIT v. Shann Finance (P) Ltd [1998] ITA Nos..1146, 1138/Kol/2012-C-AM 23 231 ITR 308 where the Supreme Court opined that a financier owning machinery might still be entitled to investment allowance even if the machinery is actually used by its lessee for the purpose of production. Going on the language of sub-sections (1) and (2) of the said section, the Supreme Court found, on an accurate assessment of the language ( we say this…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 371 / 2012HC Delhi13 Feb 2015
Section 260ASection 32

…ed from leasing of trucks by a financing company would be ―business income‖ as the asset was used in the course of business. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shaan Finance (P) Ltd. Bangalore (1998) 231 ITR 308 (SC), which interpreted analogous provisions of Sections 32A(2)(a), (b) and Section 33 of the Act dealing with investment allowance and development rebate, respectively. The 2015:DHC:1459-DB ITA Nos. 371/2012 & 372/2012 Page 4 of 24 second contention of the R…