CIT v. Sonal Gum Industries

322 ITR 542High Court2010#11522 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A Section 24 Section 32 Section 35(2AB)

Judgments citing CIT v. Sonal Gum Industries

APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(1)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assesse stands partly allowed

ITA 6023/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35

…portionate basis in respect of such assets. In support of the above contention, the Ld.AR placed reliance on the following decisions: • R. Shipping Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No.822/Mum/2005 • Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Sonal Gems Industries reported in 322 ITR 542 6.3. On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. 7 I.T.A. No. 6023/Mum/2025 I have heard the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the records placed before this Tribunal. 7. It is noted that the assessee has earned rental income from the properties being office premises which were let out during th…

M/S. BILL FORGE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU), CIRCLE - 1, BANGALORE

In the result appeal is allowed partly to extent indicated above

ITA 1161/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Maharishi Prashant & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavshri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2012-13 Mahindra Cie Automotive Ltd., Vs. Acit (Ltu), Formerly Known As Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd., Circle –1, #9C, Hosur Road, Bangalore. Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bangalore – 560 099. Pan : Aaacb 8620 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Mrs. Neera Malhotra Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

…decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of income tax versus Oswal Agro Mills Ltd (2011) 197 taxman 25 (Delhi), decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in case of Commissioner of income tax versus Sonal Gum Industries (2010) 322 ITR 542 (Gujarat) and decision of the coordinate bench in case of ACIT versus Indus League Clothing Ltd (ITA number 82/Bangalore/2018 dated 17 November 2021. We will proceed to decide the admission as well as adjudication on the ground after deciding ground number 3 of the appeal of the assessee, if warranted. 7. As per ground No. 3(a), the assessee is…

INDUS LEAGUE CLOTHING LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 82/BANG/2018[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2021AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 43(1)

…n the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd (341 ITR 467). Reliance is also placed on the following rulings: a. CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. (187 taxman 111) (p. , para 31-32 of the case law compilation volume 2); b. CIT v. Sonal Gum Industries (322 ITR 542) (p.197, para 5 of the case law compilation volume 2); c. E-City Entertainment (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (39 taxmann.com 120); (p.208-211 , para 25-28 of the case law compilation volume 2). 7. Without prejudice to the above, proportionate disallowance of depreciation can be undertaken only when there is a finding that the business assets have be…

NAVIN FLUROINE INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 7, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1205/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.L.V. Prasad, DR

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 32Section 35(1)(iv)

…f the case, we are of the view that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi high court in the case of Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and further the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sonal Gum Industries (2010) 322 ITR 542 (Gujarat), wherein it is held that in case of block of assets, which is not possible to segregate items falling within the block of assets for the purpose of granting depreciation or restricting the claim thereof. 9 Once, it was found that the assets were used for business it was not necessary that all the items falling within the plant and mach…

M/S. NABROS TRANSPORT PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2847/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2847/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Arti N. Shah, A.R

Section 43(6)(c)

…ls in any block of assets, the assessee will be entitled to the rate applicable for the assets falling within the block for the purposes of granting depreciation. It was further contended with reference to the decision of CIT vs. Sonal Gum Industries [2010] 322 ITR 542 (Gujarat) that once it is found that assets are used for business, it is not necessary that all items falling within that block have to be simultaneously used for being entitled to depreciation. The Ld. AR, therefore, referred to the original Notification No. 10/2009, dated 19.01.2009 and subsequent ITA No.2847/Ahd/2017 [M/s. Nabros Transport…

PRASHANT JAYANTILAL PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5310/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5310/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Prashant Jayantilal Patel Dcit, Circle-4(2)(1) 3-3A, 1St Floor Room No.642, 6Th Floor बनाम/ Churchgate House New Marine Lines Vs. 32/34, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 020. Fort, Mumbai-400 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpp-2156-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Devendra Jain-Ld.Ar Respondent By : Abhi Rama Kartikeyan- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/03/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Devendra Jain-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Abhi Rama Kartikeyan- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250

…epreciation was claimed against barge which could not be used by the assessee for the purpose of business as it met with an accident and remained non-operational. Similarly, the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Sonal Gems Industries [322 ITR 542] gives a finding that once it is held that assets are used for business, it is not necessary that all items falling within plant & machinery have to be simultaneously used for being entitled to depreciation. In both the case laws, the assets on which depreciation was claimed were not diverted for non-business purposes and the same did not generat…

SMT. SUDESH YADAV,MAHENDERGARH vs. ITO, NARNAUL

The appeal is allowed

ITA 514/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sudesh Yadav, Vs. Ito, W/O Vijay Paul Rao, Ward-2, Prop. M/S. Mahaluxmi Petroleum, Narnaul. Narnaul Road, Mohendergarh. (Pan: Abrpy5153A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.C. Yadav & Ms. Shubhangni Yadav, Adv. Department By: Shri Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17 .03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 31:03.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order Mainly On The Grounds That The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Sustaining The Disallowances Of: I) The Claimed Depreciation At Rs.4,56,960 On A New Tank Lorry Purchased For Rs.15,23,110; & Ii) Interest Of Rs.40,400 In Respect Of Old Advance Made To Dr. Rajbir Singh Out Of Self Capital. 2. Besides, An Application Has Been Moved By The Assessee Under Rule 11 Of The Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 For Allowing The Following Additional

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav & Ms. ShubhangniFor Respondent: Shri Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR

Section 2(11)Section 32(1)(iii)

…audit report. The Learned AR also referred page Nos. 11 and 12 of the paper book wherein the salary paid to driver has been mentioned. He placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Oswal Agro- 238 CTR 113 (Del.); ii) CIT vs. Sonal Gum Industries – 322 ITR 542 (Guj.); iii) Swati Synthetic Ltd. vs. ITO – 38 SOT 208 (Mum.). 8. The Learned Senior DR on the contrary placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. She submitted that the authorities below have dealt with the issue in detail. 9. Considering the above submissions supported with the above cited decisions, we concur with the contention o…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ENCORP E SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 4461/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 1799/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), M-4, Surya Mansion, Kausalya Park, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos. 4460 & 4461/Del/2011 : Asstt. Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), Office No. 202, F-46, Bhagat Singh New Delhi Market, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce3129L Assessee By : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

…T(A) rightly directed the AO to allow the depreciation on the assets of the assessee which were included in the block of assets. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. 341 ITR 467 (Del) " CIT Vs Sonal Gum Industries 322 ITR 542 (Guj) 30. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the ITA Nos. 1799, 4460 & 4461/Del/2011 19 Encorp E Services Ltd. present case, it is an admitted fact that the assets on which depreciation has been disallowed by the AO were forming part of the block of assets o…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ENCORP E SERVICE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 1799/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)