CIT v. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd.

216 ITR 607Supreme Court of India1995#4706 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

previous year prescribed company india business

Judgments citing CIT v. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd.

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 2458/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32(1)

…ssible when the return is filed within the stipulated time under section\n139(1). There is no reference to the provision for carry forward of depreciation\nor investment allowance in section 80.\"\n11. In the case of CIT v. Virmani Industries (P.) Ltd. [1995] 216 ITR 607 / 83\nTaxman 343 (SC), it was held as under:-\n\"The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of soap and oil during the\nprevious year relevant to the assessment year 1956-57. The assessee had\nstopped the business in that year and had let out the factory on hire. Ten years\nlater, i.e., in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1965-6…

TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ITA

ITA 3491/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Tata Housing Vs. Dcit – 8(3)(1) Development Company Room No. 615, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Aayakar Bhavan, Compound, Tb Kadam Mk Marg, Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 8(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Housing Room No. 615, Aayakar Development Company Bhavan, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Mk Marg, Compound, Tb Kadam Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Ajay Kumar. CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…. 36(1)(ili) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and relying on the various judicial pronouncements on the matter of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court particularly recent one in the case of Veecumsees vs. CIT [(1966) 220 ITR 185 (SC)], CIT Vs. Veermani Industries [216 ITR 607 (SC)I, Waterfall Estate Vs. CIT [219 ITR 563 (SC)] had held that the interest on borrowings for the purposes of business is allowable deduction U/s. 36(1) (ili) irrespective of its Capitalisation in the books and the similar ratio was also independently laid down in the case of Gwalior Rayons (Grasim Industries) and hence the payment as in the pa…

M/S REGENCY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3 (3)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7972/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare

…ew that existence of any business in the year in which the “unabsorbed depreciation‟ is sought to be “set off‟ by the assessee is not required is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 607 (SC). The Hon‟ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment had observed as under: “Yet another question which has to be answered before we can answer the question concerned in this appeal is whether it is necessary that in the following year the assessee must carry on business, i.e., some or other business, to avail of the benefit of the said sub-sec…

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S REGENCY PROPERTY INVESTMENT PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 815/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, D.R

Section 71Section 72Section 72(1)

…ew that existence of any business in the year in which the „unabsorbed depreciation‟ is sought to be „set off‟ by the assessee is not required is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 607 (SC). The Hon‟ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment had observed as under: "Yet another question which has to be answered before we can answer the question concerned in this appeal is whether it is necessary that in the following year the assessee must carry on business, i.e., some or other business, to avail of the benefit of the said sub-se…

M/S. HINDON RIVER MILLS LTD,,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2302/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2302/Del/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13 Hindon River Mills Ltd., P.O-Hindon Nagar, Dasne, Ghaziabad. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaach9966 Vs The Dcit, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-1, Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor &For Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 32(2)Section 72

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "द"ल" "यायपीठ “जी”, नई "द"ल" म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI सु"ी सुषमा चावला, "या"यक सद"य एवं डॉ. बी आर आर कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2302/Del/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13 Hindon River Mills Ltd., P.O-Hindon Nagar, Dasne, Ghaziabad. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN-AAACH9966 vs The DCIT, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-1, Ghaziabad. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Sh. Salil Kapoor & Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr.DR…

SHRI HARBANS SINGH BAWA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY CIT, CPC, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4423/MUM/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiharbans Singh Bawa Vs. Acit-17(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, 410, Jolly Bhavan No.1 10, New Marine Lines Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaapb6894K Appellant) .. Respondent) & Harbans Singh Bawa Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 112, Free Press House Acit-17(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaapb6894K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 32Section 71

…r with depreciation of the that year. However, the depreciation that year must be set off first. In this regard, he relied upon certain judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Virmani Industries Limited vs CIT (995) 216 ITR 607. The Ld. AO after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of specific provisions of section 71(2A) of the I.T.Act, 1961, came to the conclusion that losses of business and profession, including depreciation cannot be set off against income from salaries and accordingly, disallowed unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.62,49,8…

SHRI HARBANS SINGH BAWA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- 17(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3596/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Section 32Section 71

M/S. HINDON RIVER MILLS LTD,,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2301/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiya[A.Y 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

…ions of Sec. 32(2). The law regarding set off of unabsorbed depreciation upto 1.4.1996 was very liberal and set off was allowable against any income. This was also upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs CIT Vs Virmani Indus. Pvt. Ltd & Ors 216 ITR 607 (SC) (supra). However, the law regarding such set off was changed by the Finance Act No. 2 of 1996 and from A.Y. 1997-98 to 2002-03 the unabsorbed depreciation was put at par with business losses u/s. 72. However the status quo have been restored from A.Y. 2003-04 and therefore the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V…

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.REGENCY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY INTERNATIONAL CLOTHING P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2434/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhandy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Regency Property Tax-3(3)(1),Room No. 609, 6Th Investments Pvt. Ltd., Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. (Formerly International Clothing Pvt. Ltd) 77, Nariman Bhavan, 227, Vs. Road,Mumbai – 400 020 Nariman Point,Mumbai –21

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Ojha, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Satish Mody, A.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32(2)Section 72(1)

…ew that existence of any business in the year in which the „unabsorbed depreciation‟ is sought to be „set off‟ by the assessee is not required is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 607 (SC). The Hon‟ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment had observed as under: “Yet another question which has to be answered before we can answer the question concerned in this appeal is whether it is necessary that in the following year the assessee must carry on business, i.e., some or other business, to avail of the benefit of the said sub-se…

DCIT vs. M/S KEMWELL PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 210/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Renuka Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 43ASection 43A(1)

…posing a pre-condition not mandated in Article 25(4). I am of the firm view that in the absence of specific words no requirement/condition can be read into a statutory provision as held by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Virmani Industries P . Ltd (1995) 216 ITR 607). In other words, the AO cannot adduce any special requirements where there was none for the purpose of affording the exemption which is explicitly provided under the Treaty or import additional adjectives such as 'general' or 'special' etc. when such a requirement has not been specifically laid down in the DTAA. By giving exemption/ tax incentiv…

M/S KEMWELL PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 209/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Renuka Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 43ASection 43A(1)

M/S KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as common grounds of law are raised by the assessee

ITA 1500/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Section 14Section 28Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…rative bank is considered to be a co-operative society is no longer res ITA.1500, 1501/B/18 & ITA.77/B/2019 Page - 5 is required to be read in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of CIT v. Virmani Industries P. Ltd [216 ITR 607], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : We may first consider the meaning of the expression "profits or gains chargeable". On the first impression, the said expression appears to refer only to profits or gains of business or profession chargeable under section 28. But this court has repeatedly held that the said expression is not so c…

RESHMA TOOLS & ENGG. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 3, THANE

ITA 801/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. N. K. Pradahan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 801/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri B. V. Jhaveri ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajora Satish C

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…post amended provisions of Sec. 32(2). The law regarding set off of unabsorbed depreciation upto 1.4.1996 was very liberal and set off was allowable against any income. This was also upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virmani Indus. (P.) Ltd. (216 ITR 607). However, the law regarding such set off was changed by the Finance Act No. 2 of 1996 and from A.Y. 1997-98 to 2002-03 the unabsorbed depreciation was put at par with business losses u/s. 72. However the status quo have been restored from A.Y. 2003-04 and therefore the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virinani Indus. (…

STAINLESS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1384/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-4(3), (Now Known As Stainless Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ India Ltd.), M.K. Road, Vs. 226, 3Rd Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacs7067A

Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 71(2)

…only. The Ld. CIT(A) also distinguished the facts of the assessee's case with those of (a) CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 555(SC) (b) Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 777(SC) and (c) CIT v. Virmani Indus. (P.) Ltd. [1995] 216 ITR 607/ 83 Taxman 343(SC). The Ld. CIT(A) held that the current years' depreciation is not allowed to be set off against the income under the head Long Term capital gains. Further the claim of the assessee for allowing the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier year's was also not allowed for the reason that the assessee has not claimed in its computation o…

ADIT, BANGALORE vs. HAZARATH MAHABOOB SUBHANI (HMS), TUMKUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 748/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

Section 12ASection 32

…orward and set off against income of the succeeding assessment year, even if no returns were filed for the previous year. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Haryana Hotels Ltd., 276 ITR 521 and 216 ITR 607. It has filed written submissions before the CIT(Appeals) which were confronted to the AO and his comments were called. The CIT(Appeals) briefly examined the legal provisions and was of the view that there was no stipulation in the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] that for the purpose of claiming unabsorbed depreciation of earlier & CO No.27/Bang…

DESTIMONEY INDIA SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 6, MUMBAI

In the result the both the appeals filed by the assessee is hereby

ITA 3055/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3055/Mum/15 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बनाम/ Destimoney India Services The Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax – 6 Vs. Shop No.5, Ground Floor, Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Sahjeevan Chs, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Joshi Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd1326K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3056/Mum/15 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बनाम/ Destimoney Enterprises The Commissioner Of Ltd. (Formerly Known As Income Tax – 6 Vs. Destimoney Enterprises Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd.) Aaykar Bhavan, Shop No.5, Ground Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Sahjeevan Chs, N.M.Joshi Marg, Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd5100F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash Kotadia Department By: Shri P. R. Ghosh

For Appellant: Shri Prakash KotadiaFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Ghosh

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…e issue regarding set off of unabsorbed depreciation against the addition made u/s.68 of the Act has rightly been allowed by the Assessing Officer, in view of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1995)(216 ITR 607)(SC) and Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Suresh Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.5374/Mum/2011 dated 10.10.2012 and Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in ACIT Vs. Shree Raghupati Fibres Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.256/Ahd/2011 dated 12.09.2014 and Hon’ble A.Y. 2011-12 Ahmedabad Tribunal in ITP Vs. Hytaisun Magnetics Ltd. in ITA No.2897,2898/Ahd/200…

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 4033/DEL/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 71

…t) 23 Taxman 820 (Gujarat) 4. A far as the first question is concerned, our attention is invited to the decision of this Court in Deepak Textile Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) 7 and the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v.Virmani Industries (P.) Ltd. [1995] 216 ITR 6071. In the aforesaid decisions, the Courts have taken the view that in order to avail of the benefit under section 32(2) of the Act, it is not necessary that the business carried on in the following previous year should be the same business as was carried on in the preceding previous year. In the absence of any words to that effect, no such require…

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 4032/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 71

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 4620/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

Section 10ASection 10BSection 70Section 80A(1)Section 80B(5)Section 80C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘एक-सद"य’ "यायपीठ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, Assessment Year:2011-12 DCIT-10(3)(2), M/s Phoenix Mecano (I) Pvt. Room No.217, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 306, Marol Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400020 Andhri (East), Mumbai राज"व / Revenue "नधा"रती / Assessee P.A. No.AAACP2452L Shri Sharad A. Shah "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Ajay Pratap Singh-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing 03/08/2016 12/08/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /D…

U.S. INSTRUMENTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1584/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 U.S. Instruments P. Ito 1(3)(4) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ C/O H.N. Motiwalla & Vs. Co. 508 Sharda Mumbai Chamber, 33 New Marine Lines, Mumbai -400020 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacu0667J Appellant By Shri H. N. Motiwalla (Ar) Revenue By Shri N. V. Nadkarni (Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 32(2)Section 57

…ff unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.6,67,929/- and current year depreciation of Rs.2,24,298/- against the assessed income under the head "Income from other sources" without appreciating the judgements of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd. [216 ITR 607] and CIT Vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd. [155 ITR 711 (SC)] which were specifically handed over to him at the time of hearing.” 2.1. The facts in brief, are that the assessee is a company. It filed it return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.1,49,383/-. The case was selected for scrutiny u/s…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2