CIT v. Union Carbide (I) Ltd.

254 ITR 488High Court2002#6200 most cited

What is CIT v. Union Carbide (I) Ltd. authority for?

The trial production or short duration use of machinery is sufficient to claim depreciation and investment allowance as the statute does not prescribe a minimum time limit for 'use'.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Union Carbide · depreciation · investment allowance · put to use · section 143(3) · business · trial run · short duration use

Also reported as

124 Taxmann 859

Issues it is cited on

put to usesection 143(3)business

Judgments citing CIT v. Union Carbide (I) Ltd.

Cemenet Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5603/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.5602 & 5603 /Del/2016, A.Y. 2011-12 & A.Y. 2012-13

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5602 & 5603 /Del/2016, A.Y. 2011-12 & A.Y. 2012-13 M/s. Cement Corporation of Vs. ACIT, Circle –3(1), New Delhi [erstwhile] India Ltd. Circle 5(2), New Delhi [Present] Core-5, Scope Complex, 7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi- PAN AAACC0949B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. Vishal Gupta, CA Revenue by Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR & Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 12.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 20.07.2023 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA,…

Cemenet Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5602/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.5602 & 5603 /Del/2016, A.Y. 2011-12 & A.Y. 2012-13

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5602 & 5603 /Del/2016, A.Y. 2011-12 & A.Y. 2012-13 M/s. Cement Corporation of Vs. ACIT, Circle –3(1), New Delhi [erstwhile] India Ltd. Circle 5(2), New Delhi [Present] Core-5, Scope Complex, 7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi- PAN AAACC0949B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. Vishal Gupta, CA Revenue by Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR & Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 12.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 20.07.2023 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA,…

Mr. Syed Mustafa Kamal Pasha, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 705/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Mr.Syed Mustafa Kamal Pasha, Deputy Commissioner No.3, 4Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Vs. Jayamahal Extension, Circle - 6(2)(1) Bangalore Bangalore Pan – Adcpk8497N Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Sri Sanketh Nayak, CA
Section 133(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Smt. Beena Pillai, JM Mr.Syed Mustafa Kamal Pasha, Deputy Commissioner No.3, 4th Main Road, of Income Tax, Vs. Jayamahal Extension, Circle - 6(2)(1) Bangalore Bangalore PAN – ADCPK8497N Appellant Respondent : Assessee by Sri Sanketh Nayak, CA Revenue by : Sri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 29-03-2022 : Date of Pronouncement 11-04-2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)- 11, Bengaluru, dated 22-09-2020 for the…

DCIT vs. M/S Jupiter Capial Pvt. Ltd

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1595/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle 11(5), M/S. Jupiter Capital (P) Ltd., Bengaluru-560001. No. 54, Richmond Road, Vs. Bengaluru-560025. Pan : Aabcj 5666 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2010-11 DCIT, Circle 11(5), M/s. Jupiter Capital (P) Ltd., Bengaluru-560001. No. 54, Richmond Road, Vs. Bengaluru-560025. PAN : AABCJ 5666 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Assessee by : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Date of hearing : 13.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the Revenue and the same is directed against the order o…

ACIT 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Platinum P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal raised by revenue is

ITA 1097/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh.Pawan Singhacit,2(1). Hindustan Platinum Pvt. Ltd., Room No.561, 5Th Floor, C-12, Ttc Industrial Area, Aaykar Bhavan Pawane, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 20 Navi Mumbai 400 703. Vs. Pan:Aaach 1111J

For Appellant: Ms Pooja Swaroop Sr DRFor Respondent: Ms. Heena Doshi AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)Section 32

…te does not prescribe the minimum time limit for "use" of the machinery, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of depreciation on the ground that the machinery was used for a very short duration for trial run." 15. In CIT vs. Union Carbide (I) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 488 (Cal) it has been held at page 489 [head note] "...... Thus , the trial production was quite sufficient to claim both depreciation and investment allowance." 16. In Omkar Textile Mills (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [2008] 115 TTJ (Ah. Tribunal] 716 . it has been held that in view of certificate of Gujarat Energy Development Agency [GEDA], sales tax exemption…

Kesoram Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 505/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी ऐ. ट". वक","यायीक सद"यएवंडॉ.अजु"नलालसैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 773/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1037/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1722/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. Vs. Kesoram Industries Limited…

Kesoram Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5, Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1188/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी ऐ. ट". वक","यायीक सद"यएवंडॉ.अजु"नलालसैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 773/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1037/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1722/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. Vs. Kesoram Industries Limited…

Kesoram Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. Addl C.I.T RG - 5, Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 773/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी ऐ. ट". वक","यायीक सद"यएवंडॉ.अजु"नलालसैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 773/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1037/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1722/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. Vs. Kesoram Industries Limited…

D.C.I.T Cir - 5, Kolkata vs. M/S Kesoram Industries Limited, Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1995/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी ऐ. ट". वक","यायीक सद"यएवंडॉ.अजु"नलालसैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 773/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1037/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1722/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. Vs. Kesoram Industries Limited…

ACIT, Circle-5, Kolkata vs. M/S Kesoram Industries. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1722/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी ऐ. ट". वक","यायीक सद"यएवंडॉ.अजु"नलालसैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 773/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1037/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1722/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. Vs. Kesoram Industries Limited…

Kesoram Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. Add.CIT, Range-5, Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1037/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी ऐ. ट". वक","यायीक सद"यएवंडॉ.अजु"नलालसैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 773/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1037/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1722/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. Vs. Kesoram Industries Limited…

G Shoe Export, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5736/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Acit 25(1) Vs. M/S. G. Shoe Export 2Nd Floor, Bandra Kurla 1, Hitex Industrial Estate Complex, S.V.Road, Dahisar (E) Bandra Mumbai – 400 068 Mumbai – 400 081 Pan/Gir No. Aacfg5376P Appellant) Respondent) .. M/S. G. Shoe Export Vs. Acit 25(1) 2Nd 1, Hitex Industrial Estate Floor, Bandra Kurla S.V.Road, Dahisar (E) Complex, Mumbai – 400 068 Bandra Mumbai – 400 081 Pan/Gir No. Aacfg5376P Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM ACIT 25(1) Vs. M/s. G. Shoe Export 2nd Floor, Bandra Kurla 1, Hitex Industrial Estate Complex, S.V.Road, Dahisar (E) Bandra Mumbai – 400 068 Mumbai – 400 081 PAN/GIR No. AACFG5376P Appellant) Respondent) .. M/s. G. Shoe Export Vs. ACIT 25(1) 2nd 1, Hitex Industrial Estate Floor, Bandra Kurla S.V.Road, Dahisar (E) Complex, Mumbai – 400 068 Bandra Mumbai – 400 081 PAN/GIR No. AACFG5376P Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri N.R.Agrawal Revenue by Shri V.V.Vidhyadhar Date of Hearing 04/01/2018 Date of…

DCIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Prs Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue ITA No

ITA 450/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Sainia.Y 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri David Z.Chawngthu, Addl.CIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Loyalka, FCA, ld.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43B

…e the machineries which are required for running an assessee’s business have been kept for the said purpose. The assessee placed the reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT Vs. Union Carbide (I) Ltd reported in (2002) 254 ITR 488(Cal), wherein it has been held that the word ‘used’ occurring in section 32 of the Act should be given broad construction and if it is not actually in use, the assessee should be entitled to the benefit of depreciation if it is otherwise ready for use. Beside this, the assessee also relied on the following decisions/case laws:- CIT Vs. India Tea…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cement Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1985/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 32

…o held by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court 1985, 2946 & 5399 /Del./2013 5 in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd., 187 Taxmann 111. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also relied on the following decisions : (i). CIT vs. Union Carbide (I) Ltd. , 254 ITR 488 (Cal.) (ii). M/s. Swati Synthetics Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 1165/M/2006 dt. 17.12.2009- Mumbai Tribunal) (iii). G.R. Shipping Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA 822/Mum/05 dt. 17.07.2008- Mumbai Tribunal) 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the material available on record. From the above factual matrix and the contentions of both the…

ITO 1(1)-1, Mumbai vs. Bfil Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 386/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Income Tax Officer, M/S. Bfil Finance Limited Ward 1(1)(2), Room No. 534, Eucharistic Congress Bldg No.1, 4Th Floor, 5 Convent Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Street Colaba, Mumbai-400 039 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aoapp1898Paaaci3193H Revenue By .. Dr. Suman Ratnam, Dr Assessee By .. Shri Farrokh V. Irani, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 09-02-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 26-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…er that does not given the AG any authority to disallow the depreciation on such assets particularly in the light of the Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs Reetu Fin lease P Ltd and Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Union Carbide (I) Ltd, 254 ITR 488. Under the circumstances, the AG is directed to allow depreciation amounting to Rs. 54,71,658/-.” Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. We find that this issue is covered by Tribunals’ decision in assessee’s own case for the AY 2003-04 in ITA No. 6124/Mum/2008 order dated 07-10- 2009, wherein vide Para 4 the depreciation was allowed as…

Lupin Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 8097/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)
Section 144Section 37(1)

…of law of income tax. (f) The appellant cannot be denied the benefit of depreciation on the ground that the know-how was used for a very short duration for trial / experimental run. [ACIT V. Ashima Syntex Ltd. 251 ITR 133 (Guj), CIT v. Union Carbide (I) Ltd. 254 ITR 488 (Cal), CIT Vs. Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd. 311 ITR 24 (P&H)” 9. The Assessing Officer has noted that assessee written off the entire cost of the know-how in the books of account hence he disallowed the claim of deprecation u/s.32(1) of the Act. The learned DRP has confirmed the Assessing Officers action by holding as under:- “We have conside…

I.T.O WD - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Calcutta Medical Imaging Institute Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2259/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2005-06

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member Assessment Years:2005-06 ITO Ward-8(2), M/s Calcutta Medical बनाम P-7, Chowringhee Square, Imaging Institute Ltd., / Aayakar Bhawan, 5th 54, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, V/s. Floor, Room-11, Kolkta-71 Kolkata-69 [PAN No.AABCC 1739 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT-SR-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ashok Kumar Tulsyan, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-09-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 21-10-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of…

Smt. Maitreyee Das, Purba Medinipur vs. I.to WD - 1, Haldia

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 780/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.780/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.L.Bhowmick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dinabandhu Naskar, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No.780/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Maitreyee Das -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-1, Purba Medinipur Haldia [PAN : AEFPD 0377 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri K.L.Bhowmick, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Dinabandhu Naskar, JCIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 12.07.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 05.12.2012 of CIT(A)- XXXIII, Kolkata, relating to AY 2009-10. 2. Ground No.1…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Lahoti Overseas Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

ITA 3812/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…tax-payer cannot be denied the benefit of depreciation on the ground that the machinery was used for a very short duration for trial run. The assessee company further relied on the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's decision in the case of Union Carbide (I) Ltd. , 254 ITR 488 (Cal.) wherein the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that the trial production was sufficient to claim justly and properly both depreciation and investment allowance. The assessee company further relied on the decision in the case of Omkar Textile Mills (P) Ltd. v. ITO [2008] 115 TTJ 716 (Ah. Tribunal) and some other case laws to support the claim…

CIT v. Union Carbide (I) Ltd. (254 ITR 488) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax