CIT v. Vayithri Plantations Ltd.

128 ITR 675High Court1981#6976 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2022.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 80A(6)Section 80IASection 80IA(8)

Issues it is cited on

ready for useput to usesection 32indiabusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Vayithri Plantations Ltd.

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. MAHESWARA SUGARS LIMITED, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1809/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ugh it is true that a machinery generally depreciates with actual user, the judicial decisions indicate that it is not necessary to import this concept for interpreting the expression “used” in the statute.In the case of CIT Vs Vayithri Plantations Ltd [1981] 128 ITR 675 (MAD), it has been held that, so long as the machinery is kept for use, it could be stated that the machinery should be used for the purpose of business.Any forced idleness of the machinery cannot disentitle the assessee from getting the relief. The appellant also relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Chenn…

ITO WARD 1, PUDUCHERRY vs. LES ATELIERS PONDICHERRY (P) LTD., PONDICHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 1870/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. L.Shibi, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 14Section 32Section 32(1)

…e the learned CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its arguments taken before the Assessing Officer in light of certain judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs Vayithiri Plantations Ltd. (128 ITR 675). The sum & substance of arguments of the assessee before learned CIT(A) are that plant & machinery was put to use in business of the assessee and once particular plant & machinery is ready for use, then depreciation on such plant & machinery needs to be allowed whether or not, said plant & machinery was used during relevant period. The learned…

ITO WARD 1, PUDUCHERRY vs. LES ATELIERS PONDICHERRY (P) LTD., PONDICHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 1869/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. L.Shibi, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 14Section 32Section 32(1)

…e the learned CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its arguments taken before the Assessing Officer in light of certain judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs Vayithiri Plantations Ltd. (128 ITR 675). The sum & substance of arguments of the assessee before learned CIT(A) are that plant & machinery was put to use in business of the assessee and once particular plant & machinery is ready for use, then depreciation on such plant & machinery needs to be allowed whether or not, said plant & machinery was used during relevant period. The learned…

LES ATELIERS DE PONDICHERRY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO WARD 1, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 1508/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. L.Shibi, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 14Section 32Section 32(1)

…e the learned CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its arguments taken before the Assessing Officer in light of certain judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs Vayithiri Plantations Ltd. (128 ITR 675). The sum & substance of arguments of the assessee before learned CIT(A) are that plant & machinery was put to use in business of the assessee and once particular plant & machinery is ready for use, then depreciation on such plant & machinery needs to be allowed whether or not, said plant & machinery was used during relevant period. The learned…

M/S LES ATELIERS DE PONDICHERRY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO WARD 1, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 1483/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. L.Shibi, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 14Section 32Section 32(1)

…e the learned CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its arguments taken before the Assessing Officer in light of certain judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs Vayithiri Plantations Ltd. (128 ITR 675). The sum & substance of arguments of the assessee before learned CIT(A) are that plant & machinery was put to use in business of the assessee and once particular plant & machinery is ready for use, then depreciation on such plant & machinery needs to be allowed whether or not, said plant & machinery was used during relevant period. The learned…

GARG ACRYLIC LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6965/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Gurmil Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…I.T.A. No. 6965/DEL/2017 kept ready for use but is not actually put to use. These judgements included, Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 79 ITR 613 (Bom); CIT v. Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 297 (Del); CIT v. Vayithri Plantations Ltd. (1981)128 ITR 675 (Mad) and CIT v. Refrigeration and Allied Industries Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del). Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Integrated Technologies Ltd. in ITA No.530/2011 vide judgment and order dated 16th December, 2011 upheld the similar principle that it is not necessary that the plant and machinery owned by the assessee sh…

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

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

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACJ7079D Assessee by : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR Date of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 ORDER Per N.…

M/S. CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1858/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Refinery House, Manali, Vs. Tax, Chennai – 600 068 Company Circle-I(3), [Pan: Aaacm 4392C] Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: 07.09.2017
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…n which depreciation is to be, upon user, allowed. The matter stands examined in some detail in G. Shoes Exports (supra) (refer para 3.3 of the said order). We may, before parting with our order, address the decision in CIT v. Vayithri Plantations Ltd. [1981] 128 ITR 675 (Mad), relied upon by the tribunal in the assessee’s case for AY 1998-99 supra. The same, as its reading reveals, is distinguishable on facts as well as in law. We have, firstly, explained that this is a case of complete non user and not a case of passive user, as was found by the Hon'ble Court in that case. The plant is idle since its installati…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ENCORP E SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 4461/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 1799/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), M-4, Surya Mansion, Kausalya Park, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos. 4460 & 4461/Del/2011 : Asstt. Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), Office No. 202, F-46, Bhagat Singh New Delhi Market, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce3129L Assessee By : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. Kuldip Singh, JM ITA No. 1799/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), M-4, Surya Mansion, Kausalya Park, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA Nos. 4460 & 4461/Del/2011 : Asstt. Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), Office No. 202, F-46, Bhagat Singh New Delhi Market, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCE3129L Assessee by : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ENCORP E SERVICE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 1799/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 1799/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), M-4, Surya Mansion, Kausalya Park, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos. 4460 & 4461/Del/2011 : Asstt. Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), Office No. 202, F-46, Bhagat Singh New Delhi Market, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce3129L Assessee By : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. Kuldip Singh, JM ITA No. 1799/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), M-4, Surya Mansion, Kausalya Park, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA Nos. 4460 & 4461/Del/2011 : Asstt. Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), Office No. 202, F-46, Bhagat Singh New Delhi Market, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCE3129L Assessee by : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv…

STITCHWELL QUALITEX (RF) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR

The appeal is allowed with no order as to

ITA/346/2002HC Delhi16 Sept 2015
Section 143Section 260Section 32

…include a case where the asset is kept ready for use but is not actually put to use. These included Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 79 ITR 613 (Bom); CIT v. Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 297 (Del); CIT v. Vayithri Plantations Ltd. (1981)128 ITR 675 (Mad) and CIT v. Refrigeration and Allied Industries 2015:DHC:7715-DB ITA 346/2002 Page 5 of 6 Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del). 9. The Supreme Court in Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chambers of Commerce v. State of…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INSILCO LTD.

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA/873/2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The „Cit(A)‟] Allowing Deduction On Account Of Provision Made By

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…assessment could not have been earned except by his maintaining his factory in good working order, and that involves user of the factory and the machinery.” 17.2 This was also considered by the Madras High Court in CIT vs Vayithri Plantations Ltd; (1981) 128 ITR 675. In the said judgment of the Madras High Court, the word “used” was interpreted to mean and this includes even forced idleness, whereby a machinery even though ready ITA 873/2008 & 1156/2008 Page 20 of 25 for use, could not be used in a given year due to labour unrest. The court held that machinery which is kept ready for use would…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, NEW DELHI vs. INSILCO LIMITED

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA-1156/2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:678-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…assessment could not have been earned except by his maintaining his factory in good working order, and that involves user of the factory and the machinery.” 17.2 This was also considered by the Madras High Court in CIT vs Vayithri Plantations Ltd; (1981) 128 ITR 675. In the said judgment of the Madras High Court, the word “used” was interpreted to mean and this includes even forced idleness whereby a machinery even though ready 2009:DHC:678-DB for use, could not be used in a given year due to labour unrest. The court held that machinery which is kept ready for use would come within the expression “us…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, NEW DELHI vs. INSILCO LIMITED

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA-873/2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:679-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…assessment could not have been earned except by his maintaining his factory in good working order, and that involves user of the factory and the machinery.” 17.2 This was also considered by the Madras High Court in CIT vs Vayithri Plantations Ltd; (1981) 128 ITR 675. In the said judgment of the Madras High Court, the word “used” was interpreted to mean and this includes even forced idleness whereby a machinery even though ready 2009:DHC:679-DB for use, could not be used in a given year due to labour unrest. The court held that machinery which is kept ready for use would come within the expression “us…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INSILCO LIMITED

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA - 1156 / 2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:678-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…assessment could not have been earned except by his maintaining his factory in good working order, and that involves user of the factory and the machinery.” 17.2 This was also considered by the Madras High Court in CIT vs Vayithri Plantations Ltd; (1981) 128 ITR 675. In the said judgment of the Madras High Court, the word “used” was interpreted to mean and this includes even forced idleness whereby a machinery even though ready 2009:DHC:678-DB for use, could not be used in a given year due to labour unrest. The court held that machinery which is kept ready for use would come within the expression “us…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INSILCO LTD.

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA - 873 / 2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:679-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…assessment could not have been earned except by his maintaining his factory in good working order, and that involves user of the factory and the machinery.” 17.2 This was also considered by the Madras High Court in CIT vs Vayithri Plantations Ltd; (1981) 128 ITR 675. In the said judgment of the Madras High Court, the word “used” was interpreted to mean and this includes even forced idleness whereby a machinery even though ready 2009:DHC:679-DB for use, could not be used in a given year due to labour unrest. The court held that machinery which is kept ready for use would come within the expression “us…