CIT v. Sree Senhavalli Textiles (P) Ltd.

PRISM CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 6(1), MUMBAI

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)

…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 NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD vs. ADDLCIT RG - 7(1),

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

…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…

GODREJ & BOYCE MFG CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 10(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the AO is dismissed

…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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

…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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

…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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

…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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…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…