How many judgments cite CIT v. Shri T.P. Textiles (P.) Ltd.?

73 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Shri T.P. Textiles (P.) Ltd. (394 ITR 483), spanning 2018 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Shri T.P. Textiles (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(1), Section 32(1)(iia), Section 143(3), Section 32(1), Section 115JB, Section 132(4).

CIT v. Shri T.P. Textiles (P.) Ltd.

394 ITR 483High Court2017#1561 most cited

What is CIT v. Shri T.P. Textiles (P.) Ltd. authority for?

An assessee is entitled to claim the balance 10% of additional depreciation in the succeeding assessment year if the new plant and machinery were put to use for less than 180 days in the previous year.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shri T.P. Textiles · section 32(1)(iia) · additional depreciation · less than 180 days · balance depreciation · succeeding assessment year · Madras High Court

Also reported as

246 Taxmann 324

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 115JB Section 132(4)Section 133A Section 142(2A)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(15a)section 17(2)(iiia)section 32(1)(iia)profit split method section 92ca(4)section 17(2)comparable uncontrolled price method cost plus method additional depreciation section 80h interest on interest section 43a

Judgments citing CIT v. Shri T.P. Textiles (P.) Ltd.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. M/S National Engineering Industrial Ltd

ITAT/70/2022HC Calcutta27 Jul 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 260A

…OD-12 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/70/2022 IA NO: GA/1/2022 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIAL LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK Date : 27th July, 2022 Appearance :- Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Asim Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Soham Sen, Adv. The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1), Kolkata vs. Ramkrishna Forging Ltd

ITAT/49/2020HC Calcutta27 Jul 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 27Th July, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv., ….For Appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13Th February 2019 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.(Ss).A. No. 09 (Kol) Of 2017 Relating To The A.Y. 2010-2011.. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- (I) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Provision For Allowing Additional Depreciation Of Remaining 50% Is Allowable In The Subsequent Year I.E. Assessment Year 2010-11, Although The Statute Allowed The Same W.E.F. 01.04.2016 ? (Ii) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred On Facts By Not Appreciating The Legal Provisions That Disallowance Of The Claim Of The Remaining Additional

Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)

…OD - 8 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/49/2020 IA NO: GA/2/2020 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL – 1, KOLKATA VS. RAMKRISHNA FORGING LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK Date : 27th July, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv., ….for appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv. …for respondent The Court : This appeal filed by revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 13th February 2019 passed by the In…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Vibracoustic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT R-561, Shankar Road, Special Range-9 New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi - 110011 PAN No. AABCS 7623 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri K.C. Singhal, C.A. and Ms. Astha Tiwari, C.A. Revenue by Shri M. Baranwal, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 07.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 07.07.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.04.2019 of the Co…

Tata International Ltd ( for Erstwhile Bachi Shoes Ltd), Vellore vs. ACIT Circle 1, Vellore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1523/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Tata International Limited V. Acit – Circle – 1 {Erstwhile Bachi Shoes Ltd} No.2, 2Nd Floor No. 147, Sidco Industrial Estate Central Revenue Building Sipcot, Ranipet – 632403 Barracks Cross Street Officers Line, Vellore -632001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aastha Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Damor Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–13, Chennai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 05.03.2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds In Its Appeal: - “The Appellant Objects To The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)'S Order Dismissing The Appeal Against The Assessment Order, For 2013-14 Aly I) Omitting To Reduce The Adjustments Of Rs. 5,69,560 U/S 145A As Per Letter Dated 25.2.2016;

For Appellant: Ms. Aastha ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor

Section 145ASection 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…decided by the Apex Court and Madras High Court. 7. The CIT(A) ought to have followed the binding decisions of the Madras High Court directly on this issue of carry forward of balance Additional Depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) in CIT vs T.P. Textiles private ltd. 394 ITR 483 (Mad) 3 M/s. Tata International Limited 8. The CIT(A) omitted to decide on the error in giving credit for tax of credit for the TDS of Rs. 19,858 only as against the correct TDS of Rs.27333 and sending the matter back to the AO. On these grounds and on such other grounds as may be put forth at the time of hearing. the appellant prays that the: i…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Vibracoustic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT R-561, Shankar Road, Special Range-9 New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi PAN No. AABCS 7623 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri K.C. Singhal, Adv. Revenue by Shri M. Baranwal, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 29.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 29.06.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.04.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9…

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

…t to use for less than 180 days in the previous year, the depreciation was restricted to 50%. Such a situation as in the present case, was considered by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri T.P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd., 394 ITR 483, the Court referred to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., (supra) as well as the addition of third proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act and observed as under:— “10.1:- The plain language of section 32(1)(iia) read along with relevant proviso would have us come to the conclusion that, th…

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

…t being acquired and put to use for less than 180 days in the previous year, the depreciation was restricted to 50%. Such a situation as in the present case, was considered by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Shri T.P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. 394 ITR 483, the court referred to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as well as the addition of third proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act and observed as under:- “10.1 : The plain language of sec. 32(1)(iia) read along with relevant proviso would have us to come to the conclusion that, the…

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

…ia) to Section 32(1) is a benefit granted to the assessee, the law cannot be read in a manner to make such benefit void merely because it is not explicitly provided. 104. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in case of CIT vs T. P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. [394 ITR 483], took note of the amendment vide C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., third proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act and observed as under: “10.1:- The plain language of section 32(1)(iia) read along with relevant proviso would have us come to the conclusion that, there is no limitation in the assessee…

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

…ia) to Section 32(1) is a benefit granted to the assessee, the law cannot be read in a manner to make such benefit void merely because it is not explicitly provided. 104. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in case of CIT vs T. P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. [394 ITR 483], took note of the amendment vide third proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act and observed as under: “10.1: The plain language of section 32(1)(iia) read along with relevant proviso would have us come to the conclusion that, there is no limitation in the assessee claiming the balance 10 per cent of additional depreciat…

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

…ia) to Section 32(1) is a benefit granted to the assessee, the law cannot be read in a manner to make such benefit void merely because it is not explicitly provided. 104. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in case of CIT vs T. P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. [394 ITR 483], took note of the amendment vide third proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act and observed as under: “10.1: The plain language of section 32(1)(iia) read along with relevant proviso would have us come to the conclusion that, there is no limitation in the assessee claiming the balance 10 per cent of additional depreciat…

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

…ia) to Section 32(1) is a benefit granted to the assessee, the law cannot be read in a manner to make such benefit void merely because it is not explicitly provided. 104. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in case of CIT vs T. P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. [394 ITR 483], took note of the amendment vide third proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act and observed as under: “10.1: The plain language of section 32(1)(iia) read along with relevant proviso would have us come to the conclusion that, there is no limitation in the assessee claiming the balance 10 per cent of additional depreciat…

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

…ia) to Section 32(1) is a benefit granted to the assessee, the law cannot be read in a manner to make such benefit void merely because it is not explicitly provided. 104. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in case of CIT vs T. P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. [394 ITR 483], took note of the amendment vide third proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act and observed as under: “10.1: The plain language of section 32(1)(iia) read along with relevant proviso would have us come to the conclusion that, there is no limitation in the assessee claiming the balance 10 per cent of additional depreciat…

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

…ia) to Section 32(1) is a benefit granted to the assessee, the law cannot be read in a manner to make such benefit void merely because it is not explicitly provided. 104. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in case of CIT vs T. P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. [394 ITR 483], took note of the amendment vide third proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act and observed as under: “10.1: The plain language of section 32(1)(iia) read along with relevant proviso would have us come to the conclusion that, there is no limitation in the assessee claiming the balance 10 per cent of additional depreciat…

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

…ia) to Section 32(1) is a benefit granted to the assessee, the law cannot be read in a manner to make such benefit void merely because it is not explicitly provided. 104. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in case of CIT vs T. P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. [394 ITR 483], took note of the amendment vide third proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act and observed as under: “10.1: The plain language of section 32(1)(iia) read along with relevant proviso would have us come to the conclusion that, there is no limitation in the assessee claiming the balance 10 per cent of additional depreciat…

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

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)

…has come up before the Coordinate Bench in the case of ACIT v. M/s. TCPL Packaging Ltd., in ITA.No. 5403 & 5402/Mum/2016 dated 23.02.2018 and the Tribunal considering the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Shri T.P. Textiles (P.) Ltd., [394 ITR 483] allowed the claim for additional depreciation. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Coordinate Bench also considered the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. M/s. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., while disposing off the issue in favour of the assessee. 5. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Of…

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

…ponents 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 followed the decisions of the ITAT on this issue. He chose to take a view, which is not supported by any judicial order or decision. We respectfully follow the propositions of law laid down by various Benches of ITAT cited above on this issue. 6. Under these circumstances, we apply the propositions of law laid dow…

M/S. Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. Jaipur, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-6, Jaipur, Circle-6

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 784/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 cuke M/s Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. The DCIT, Vs. Khaitan Bhawan, Circle-6, M.I. Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCM1849 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri P.C.Parwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Runi…

Cummins India Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 685/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.685/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved &For Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, CIT

Section 14ASection 35

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “सी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.685/PUN/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cummins India Limited. Cummins India Office Campus, Tower-A, 5th Floor, Survey No.21, Balewadi, Pune-411 045. PAN : AAACC7258B .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Gopal Agarwal Revenue by : Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Heari…

Technocraft Industries (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1378/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh

…rvations of the Assessing Officer. 18. The learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Further, he also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v/s Shri T.P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd., [2017] 394 ITR 483 (Mad.). 19. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. Undisputedly, in the assessment year 2010–11 the 11 Technocraft Industries India Ltd. assessee had purchased some plant and machinery on which additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act was allowable @ 20%. However, since the assets were put to…