CIT v. Texmo Precision Castings

321 ITR 481High Court2010#8976 most cited

What is CIT v. Texmo Precision Castings authority for?

Additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) is available for plant and machinery in the business of generation and distribution of power, provided there is operational connectivity with the article manufactured. The insertion of specific language regarding power generation in Finance Act 2012, effective from 01.04.2013, does not preclude eligibility for earlier periods.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Texmo Precision Castings · Section 32(1)(iia) · additional depreciation · power generation · plant and machinery · operational connectivity · Finance Act 2012

Judgments citing CIT v. Texmo Precision Castings

DCIT Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Chiranjeevi Wind Energy Limited, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2225/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…ness of generation and distribution of power, a further sum equal to 20% of actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT V/s Texmo Precision Castings (321 ITR 481); CIT V/s VTM Ltd. (187 Taxman 319); CIT V/s Hi Tech Arai Ltd. (321 ITR 477) and the decision of Chennai Tribunal in ACIT V/s M. Satishkumar (33 Taxmann.com 396). The assessee thus submitted that the plant and machinery relating to power generation unit would be eligible for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia). 3.3 However, not convinced, Ld.…

DCIT Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. M/S. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., Coimbatore

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1289/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri.Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Manoj Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)

…us to the view that generation of electricity is a manufacturing 4 ITA No: 1289/Chny/2019 process and qualifies for deduction u/s 32(1)(iia). The assessee also cited the case laws of decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT V/s Texmo Precision Castings (321 ITR 481); CIT V/s VTM Ltd. (187 Taxman 319) & CIT V/s Hi Tech Arai Ltd. (321 ITR 477). Considering these decisions, the Ld. CIT(A) also noted that similar favorable view was taken by first appellate authority in the case of Madras Sugars Ltd. which got amalgamated with the assessee and therefore, the additional depreciation would be available to the asse…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6302/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…eligible plant and machinery with the article and thing manufactured by the assessee: • CIT v. VTM Ltd: 319 ITR 336 (Mad) • CIT v. Hindustan Newsprint Ltd.: 183 Taxman 257 (Ker) • CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd: 321 ITR 477 (Mad): • CIT v. Texmo Precision castings: 321 ITR 481 (Mad) • CIT vs. Diamines & Chemicals Ltd.: 271 CTR 98 (Guj) • NRB Bearings Ltd. vs. DCIT: 133 ITD 306 (Mum ITAT) 10.0 On the other hand, the Ld. CIT (DR) refuted the contentions of the assessee’s counsel. The Ld. CIT (DR) heavily relied upon the findings contained in the assessment order. It was argued Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. ACIT & DCIT that,…

M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6282/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…eligible plant and machinery with the article and thing manufactured by the assessee: • CIT v. VTM Ltd: 319 ITR 336 (Mad) • CIT v. Hindustan Newsprint Ltd.: 183 Taxman 257 (Ker) • CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd: 321 ITR 477 (Mad): • CIT v. Texmo Precision castings: 321 ITR 481 (Mad) • CIT vs. Diamines & Chemicals Ltd.: 271 CTR 98 (Guj) • NRB Bearings Ltd. vs. DCIT: 133 ITD 306 (Mum ITAT) 10.0 On the other hand, the Ld. CIT (DR) refuted the contentions of the assessee’s counsel. The Ld. CIT (DR) heavily relied upon the findings contained in the assessment order. It was argued Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. ACIT & DCIT that,…

ACIT Cir 27(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Deepali Atul Ganatra, Mumbai

ITA 7251/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar -ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari-Sr.AR-CIT
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80H

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “डी” खंडपीठ म" Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“D”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C. N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7251/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ACIT Circle-27(1) Smt. Deepali Atul Ganatra Room No.415, 4th Floor 104, Kaveri Neelkanth Valley Tower No.6, Vashi Station Complex, Vs. 7, Rajawadi Road, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai 400 703. Mumbai 400 077. PAN : AAFPG 3094 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)…

M/S. Sanwaria Agroils Limited, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 620/IND/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 32

…ined in s.32(1)(iia) of the Act. Accordingly, additional depreciation on windmill as allowed by CIT(A)/ITAT was upheld. M/s. Sanwaria Agroil Ltd. / I.T.A. No. 620/Ind/2013 /A.Y.:07-08 Page 25 of 34 321 ITR 477 (Mad.)(HC) and CIT Vs. Texmo Precision Castings 321 ITR 481 (Mad.)(HC). 32. We find that the expression ‘article or thing’ used in section 32(1) (iia) is not defined in the IT Act, 1961. The Supreme Court in case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. NTPC Ltd. 5 SSC 203 held that electricity is ‘goods’ and therefore production/generation of electricity is production of article or thing. Further, Delhi Tribunal…

Mc Nally Sayaji Engineering Limited, North 24 Parganas vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 927/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ngly he disallowed the claim of additional depreciation on windmill in the assessment. 12.1. The ld CIT(A) observed that the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Texmo Precision Castings reported in 321 ITR 481 (Mad) ; CIT vs Hi Tech Arai Ltd reported in 321 ITR 477 (Mad) wherein it was held that as far as application of section 32(1)(iia) of the act is concerned, what is required to be satisfied in order to claim the additional depreciation is that a new machinery or plant should have been acquired and installed after 31st March 2002 by an assessee, wh…

DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1575/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ngly he disallowed the claim of additional depreciation on windmill in the assessment. 12.1. The ld CIT(A) observed that the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Texmo Precision Castings reported in 321 ITR 481 (Mad) ; CIT vs Hi Tech Arai Ltd reported in 321 ITR 477 (Mad) wherein it was held that as far as application of section 32(1)(iia) of the act is concerned, what is required to be satisfied in order to claim the additional depreciation is that a new machinery or plant should have been acquired and installed after 31st March 2002 by an assessee, wh…

ACIT, Kota vs. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota

ITA 82/JPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri H.V. Gurjar (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

…rovision contained in s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Accordingly, additional depreciation on windmill as allowed by CIT(A)/ITAT was upheld. This view was also followed in case of CIT Vs. Hi Tech Arai Ltd. 321 ITR 477 (Mad.)(HC) and CIT Vs. Texmo Precision Castings 321 ITR 481 (Mad.)(HC) ACIT, Circle-1, Kota vs. M/s Mangalam Cement Ltd. Kota 14.2 It was further submitted that the expression ‘article or thing’ used in section 32(1)(iia) is not defined in the IT Act, 1961. The Supreme Court in case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. NTPC Ltd. 5 SSC 203 held that electricity is ‘goods’ and therefore production/generation of e…

Abott India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3472/Mum/2013 and ITA No

ITA 832/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Morya Pratap
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…chinery acquired need not have operational connectivity to the article or thing that was manufactured and in support the assessee also relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Hi tech Arai Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 477 and CIT v. Texmo Precision Castings (2010) 321 ITR 481. The assessee submitted that the only requirement to be met under the provisions of the Act is that the plant and machinery should not be installed in the office premises or residential/guest ITA 3482/Mum/2013 & 7 ITA 832/Mum/2013 house accommodation which clearly indicates that it is not necessary that plant and machinery should be installed…

Abbott India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3472/Mum/2013 and ITA No

ITA 3472/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Morya Pratap
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…chinery acquired need not have operational connectivity to the article or thing that was manufactured and in support the assessee also relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Hi tech Arai Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 477 and CIT v. Texmo Precision Castings (2010) 321 ITR 481. The assessee submitted that the only requirement to be met under the provisions of the Act is that the plant and machinery should not be installed in the office premises or residential/guest ITA 3482/Mum/2013 & 7 ITA 832/Mum/2013 house accommodation which clearly indicates that it is not necessary that plant and machinery should be installed…

Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1458/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)

…ection 32(1)(iia) of the Act and accordingly eligible for additional depreciation. Similar views were also expressed in the following decisions :- CIT vs Hi Tech Arai Ltd reported in (2010) 321 ITR 477 (Mad) CIT vs Texmo Precision Castings reported in (2010) 321 ITR 481 (Mad) CIT vs Atlas Export Enterprises reported in (2015) 57 taxmann.com 285 (Mad) ACIT vs M Satishkumar in ITA No. 718/Mds/2012 dated 28.9.2012 (Chennai Tribunal) DCIT vs Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd in ITA No. 832/Bang/2012 dated 2.8.2013 (Bangalore Tribunal) It was contended that in the aforesaid decisions, the asst year involved was prior to Asst…

CIT v. Texmo Precision Castings (321 ITR 481) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax