CIT v. Sree Senhavalli Textiles (P) Ltd.

259 ITR 77High Court2003#9240 most cited

What is CIT v. Sree Senhavalli Textiles (P) Ltd. authority for?

The Assessing Officer is obligated to grant eligible depreciation to an assessee when computing total income, irrespective of whether the assessee claimed it in their return. This principle applies even if subsequent amendments to depreciation provisions were intended to clarify existing law.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sree Senhavalli Textiles (P) Ltd. · 259 ITR 77 · Section 32 · depreciation allowance · Assessing Officer · eligible depreciation · claim depreciation

Judgments citing CIT v. Sree Senhavalli Textiles (P) Ltd.

Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 804/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 804 & 805/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…of those earlier years. Without amending the assessments of those years, the assumed written down value could not be considered to work out the depreciation of the current year. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs Sree Senhavalti Textiles (P.) Ltd. (2003) 253 ITR 77 (Mad.), Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 721 (Ker.), the Hon'ble J ft K. High Court in CIT vs Agya Wanti 248 ITR 641 (J & K). It is noted that the Department has relied upon the decision in K. K. Doshi (245 ITR 849)(Bom.), which has been reversed by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2008) 297 ITR 38(SC), wher…

M/S Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 140/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019
Section 250(6)

…ial pronouncements. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the decisions of Kerala High Court in the case of “CIT v. Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd.” [2003] 261 ITR 721; Madras High Court in the case of “CIT v. Sree Senhavalli Textiles (P.) Ltd.”[2003] 259 ITR 77; Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of “Ram Nath Jindal and Jagjiwan Ram v. CIT” [2001] 252 ITR 590; Kolkata Bench of ITAT in “Bhagwati Sponge (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT” [2016] 72 taxmann.com 40 ; “Dilip Kumar Roy v. DCIT” [2011] 11 taxmann.com 107 (Kolkata); “Surat Textile Mills Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer” [2014] 46 taxmann.com 419 (Gujarat);…

M/S Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 139/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019
Section 250(6)

…ial pronouncements. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the decisions of Kerala High Court in the case of “CIT v. Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd.” [2003] 261 ITR 721; Madras High Court in the case of “CIT v. Sree Senhavalli Textiles (P.) Ltd.”[2003] 259 ITR 77; Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of “Ram Nath Jindal and Jagjiwan Ram v. CIT” [2001] 252 ITR 590; Kolkata Bench of ITAT in “Bhagwati Sponge (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT” [2016] 72 taxmann.com 40 ; “Dilip Kumar Roy v. DCIT” [2011] 11 taxmann.com 107 (Kolkata); “Surat Textile Mills Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer” [2014] 46 taxmann.com 419 (Gujarat);…

M/S Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 547/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019
Section 250(6)

…ial pronouncements. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the decisions of Kerala High Court in the case of “CIT v. Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd.” [2003] 261 ITR 721; Madras High Court in the case of “CIT v. Sree Senhavalli Textiles (P.) Ltd.”[2003] 259 ITR 77; Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of “Ram Nath Jindal and Jagjiwan Ram v. CIT” [2001] 252 ITR 590; Kolkata Bench of ITAT in “Bhagwati Sponge (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT” [2016] 72 taxmann.com 40 ; “Dilip Kumar Roy v. DCIT” [2011] 11 taxmann.com 107 (Kolkata); “Surat Textile Mills Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer” [2014] 46 taxmann.com 419 (Gujarat);…

M/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd vs. Addlcit RG - 7(1)

ITA 6141/MUM/2003[2000 01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Income - Tax Range-7(1), (Earlier Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013 Pan – Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) D.C.I.T, Circle-7 (1), M/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. 452, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Mumbai. 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Senior advocateFor Respondent: Shri Ronak Doshi, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 44A

…assessee‟s choice to claim depreciation allowance. This choice is, however, expressly taken away by insertion of Explanation 5 in section 32 with effect from 1st April, 2002, from assessment year 2002-03 onwards. In CIT Vs. Sree Senhavalli Textiles (P) Ltd., 259 ITR 77 (Mad), the Hon‟ble Madras High Court has held that though after judgment was rendered by the apex Court in CIT Vs. Mahendra Mills (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 381: (2000) 243 ITR 56 (SC), Expln. 5 was inserted in s. 32(1) by the Finance Act, 2001, w.e.f. 1st April, 2002, declaring that „for the removal of doubts‟ the provisions of sub-s (1) will apply whet…

Magick Woods Exports Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assesssee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical

ITA 871/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 871/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Magic Woods Exports Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle -4(1), A-8, Industrial Complex, Chennai. Maraimalai Nagar, Kancheepuram – 603 209

For Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT

…f the Ld. AO to grant such depreciation while computing the total income of the Appellant. With reference to above, the Appellant wishes to rely upon the order of the Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of SreeSenhavalli Textiles (P.) Ltd. [[2003] 259 ITR 77] and the order of the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Kellogg India (P.) Ltd. [(2006) 8 SOT 679], wherein it is held that the assessing officer is bound to allow the eligible depreciation to the assessee, irrespective of whether the same has been claimed by the assessee in the return of income. Further reliance is…

Plastiblends India Limited Through Its Chairman and Managing Director vs. Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax Range 8(2) Mumbai

C.A. No.-000238-000238 - 2012Supreme Court09 Oct 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 143(1)(a)Section 32Section 80

…o be reduced for computing the profits eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act, as it was a complete code in itself. For arriving at the said conclusion, the Full Bench took note of the relevant provisions of 12 (2003) 261 ITR 721 13 (2003) 259 ITR 77 14 (2001) 252 ITR 590 14 Chapter VI-A, particularly, Section 80A, Section 80AB and Section 80B as well as Section 80-IA of the Act. Contrasting the provisions of Chapter VI-A with Chapter IV, the High Court remarked that whereas Chapter IV contains provision relating to the computation of total income under various heads of income as also…

Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the AO is dismissed

ITA 8488/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Josh (AR)For Respondent: S/Shri A.G. Bhatkar-(CIT-DR) and K.V. Vispute- (DR)
Section 254(1)Section 43(6)

…Delhi – HC); 2. CIT vs. Kerala Electric Lamp Workers Ltd. – 261 ITR 721 (Kerla – HC); 3. SEDCO Forex International Drill INC and Others – 279 ITR 310 (SC) ; 4. DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd. – 298 ITR 194 (SC); 5. CIT vs. Sree Senha Valli Textiles P. Ltd. – 259 ITR 77 (Mad. – HC); 6. CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. and others – Civil appeal No.8750 of 2014 decided on September 5, 2014. 20.We have perused the aforesaid decisions and found that the Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said decisions are unanimous to hold that where a substantive right has been affected by the amendment, t…

Addl CIT Cen Cir IX, Mumbai vs. Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed of in terms

ITA 8503/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35E

…hose earlier years. Without amending the assessments of those years, the assumed written down value could not be considered to work out the depreciation of the current year. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs Sree Senhavalli Textiles (P.) Ltd. (2003) 253 ITR 77 (Mad.), Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 721 (Ker.), the Hon’ble J & K. High Court in CIT vs Agya Wanti 248 ITR 641 (J & K). It is noted that the Department has relied upon the decision in K. K. Doshi (245 ITR 849)(Bom.), which has been reversed by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2008) 297 ITR 38(SC),…

ACIT Cen Cir Cir-34, Mumbai vs. Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed of in terms

ITA 3859/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35E

…hose earlier years. Without amending the assessments of those years, the assumed written down value could not be considered to work out the depreciation of the current year. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs Sree Senhavalli Textiles (P.) Ltd. (2003) 253 ITR 77 (Mad.), Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 721 (Ker.), the Hon’ble J & K. High Court in CIT vs Agya Wanti 248 ITR 641 (J & K). It is noted that the Department has relied upon the decision in K. K. Doshi (245 ITR 849)(Bom.), which has been reversed by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2008) 297 ITR 38(SC),…

DCIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs. Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed of in terms

ITA 5751/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35E

…hose earlier years. Without amending the assessments of those years, the assumed written down value could not be considered to work out the depreciation of the current year. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs Sree Senhavalli Textiles (P.) Ltd. (2003) 253 ITR 77 (Mad.), Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 721 (Ker.), the Hon’ble J & K. High Court in CIT vs Agya Wanti 248 ITR 641 (J & K). It is noted that the Department has relied upon the decision in K. K. Doshi (245 ITR 849)(Bom.), which has been reversed by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2008) 297 ITR 38(SC),…

M/S. Indian Seamless Steels & Alloys Ltd vs. The Jt CIT S.R.19

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2214/MUM/2005[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 28Section 29Section 30Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43D

…to avail the benefit for some reason, the benefit cannot be forced upon the assessee as it is for the assessee to see if the claim of depreciation is to his advantage. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT v/s Sree Senhavalli Textiles Pvt. Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 77 (Mad.) and CIT V/S Aircel Ltd. [2008] 296 ITR 85 (Mad.), following the decision of Mahendra Mills Ltd. (supra) expressed similar view. In our view, the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Madras High Court will apply to the facts of the present case. The decision relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative is…