CIT v. Straw Products Ltd.

60 ITR 165Supreme Court of India1966#16064 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 29Section 30Section 32

Issues it is cited on

section 43dsection 10(5)section 32(2)section 10(1)section 43(6)opening wdvsection 80hhcsection 80hhwritten down valuesection 16section 34section 30

Judgments citing CIT v. Straw Products Ltd.

PRASIDH FINCAP LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1534/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

For Appellant: Shri I. P. Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…value or notional written down value (WDV) at the commencement of the assessment year is no longer res integra and covered by three judgments of the Supreme Court reported as CIT v. Straw Products Ltd [1966] 60 ITR 156, CIT v Dharampur Leather Co. Ltd.[1966] 60 ITR 165, CIT v. Nandlal Bhandari Mills Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 173. The relevant portions of the Supreme Court judgment in. Straw Products Ltd.'s case (supra) reads as under:- "The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, disagreeing with the Income-tax Officer, held on appeal that the assessee had not been allowed excess depreciation allowance as per the original as…

PRASIDH FINCAP LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7966/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

For Appellant: Shri I. P. Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…value or notional written down value (WDV) at the commencement of the assessment year is no longer res integra and covered by three judgments of the Supreme Court reported as CIT v. Straw Products Ltd [1966] 60 ITR 156, CIT v Dharampur Leather Co. Ltd.[1966] 60 ITR 165, CIT v. Nandlal Bhandari Mills Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 173. The relevant portions of the Supreme Court judgment in. Straw Products Ltd.'s case (supra) reads as under:- "The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, disagreeing with the Income-tax Officer, held on appeal that the assessee had not been allowed excess depreciation allowance as per the original as…

PRASIDH FINCAP LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-20(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7965/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

For Appellant: Shri I. P. Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…value or notional written down value (WDV) at the commencement of the assessment year is no longer res integra and covered by three judgments of the Supreme Court reported as CIT v. Straw Products Ltd [1966] 60 ITR 156, CIT v Dharampur Leather Co. Ltd.[1966] 60 ITR 165, CIT v. Nandlal Bhandari Mills Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 173. The relevant portions of the Supreme Court judgment in. Straw Products Ltd.'s case (supra) reads as under:- "The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, disagreeing with the Income-tax Officer, held on appeal that the assessee had not been allowed excess depreciation allowance as per the original as…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HYBRID RICE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/333/2008HC Delhi09 Oct 2009

Bench: Becoming An “Assessee” Can Still Be Treated As Actual Cost To The Assessee In Complete Disregard To The Peculiar Circumstances Of The Case?”

Section 32Section 43

…assessment year is no longer 2009:DHC:4205-DB ITA Nos. 333/2008 & 338/2008 Page 5 res integra and covered by three judgments of the Supreme Court reported as CIT Vs. Straw Products Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 156, CIT Vs. Dharampur Leather Co. Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 165, CIT Vs. Nand Lal Bhandari Mills (1966) 60 ITR 173. The relevant portions of the Supreme Court judgment in Straw Products Ltd. case reads as under:- “The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, disagreeing with the Income-tax Officer, held on appeal that the assessee had not been allowed excess depreciation allowance as per the original assessme…

M/S KARNATAKA SMALL S.INDT.DEV.COR.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BANGALORE

C.A. No.-000823-000823 - 2000Supreme Court03 Dec 2002
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
Section 115Section 115JSection 115J(1)Section 256(1)Section 28Section 32Section 72Section 73Section 74Section 74A

…investment allowance since the depreciation and the investment allowance claimed in the preceding year had not been actually allowed. Reliance has been placed on the decisions reported in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City I v. Dharampur Leather Co. Ltd. 60 ITR 165 and Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India and Others 98 ITR 209 in support of this submission. According to the Mr. Ganesh, the entire investment allowance and unabsorbed depreciation as on April 1998 remained intact and was not written off or obliterated by computation of income of 30 per cent of the book profit under section 115-J.…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-005394-005394 - 1994Supreme Court15 Mar 2000
For Respondent: MAHENDRA MILLS
Section 32Section 34Section 72Section 73

…not think these two judgments of this Court on which strong reliance was placed by Mr. Verma advance his case. Issues in those cases were entirely different having no bearing on the question before us. CIT vs. Dharampur Leather Co. Ltd. [(1966) 60 ITR 165 (SC)] was a case under the Income-tax Act, 1922. Sub-section (1) of section 10 deals with the tax payable by an assessee in respect of the profits or gains of any business, profession or vocation carried on by him. Sub-section (2) requires such profits or gains to be computed after making the allowances therein set out. Clause…

CIT v. Straw Products Ltd. (60 ITR 165) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax