CIT v. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd.

216 ITR 607Supreme Court of India1995#4086 most cited

What is CIT v. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

An assessee is not required to carry on business in the year in which unabsorbed depreciation is sought to be set off, provided the return is filed within the stipulated time. The carry forward of depreciation or investment allowance is permissible even if the business was stopped in the prior year.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd. · 216 ITR 607 · SC · 1995 · unabsorbed depreciation · carry forward · set off · business discontinued · previous year · Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

previous yearprescribedcompanyindiabusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd.

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

…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…

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…

ACIT, Bellary vs. M/S Kampli Co-Op Sugar Factory Limite, Kampli

ITA 829/BANG/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

…rt of valuation officer. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is eligible for set off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs 1,49,50,9741- relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd reported in 216 ITR 607 (1995) without appreciating the facts that the decision in 216 ITR 607 is not squarely applicable to the facts of the case and the decision relates to the Assessment Year 1965-66. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the amendments to section 32(2) takes effect from 1st April 1997, and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment…

Asst CIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Anil Priners Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5859/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2009-10 Acit, Anil Printers Ltd. Circle-6(1), R. No.506, 2, Kakad Industrial Estate, बनाम/ 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Matunga West, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400016 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aacca6914C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 114JSection 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 32(2)Section 32oSection 42Section 80

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ए, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" । Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member Assessment Year-2009-10 ACIT, Anil Printers Ltd. Circle-6(1), R. No.506, 2, Kakad Industrial Estate, बनाम/ 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Matunga West, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400016 Mumbai-400020 PAN No.AACCA6914C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri M.Murli-DR Shri Mayur Kisnadwala "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / D…

Sunshield Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5045/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5045/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

For Respondent: Shri Nitin Waghmode ,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 29Section 30Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 71

…e following case laws in support of its contentions: 1. CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines Private Limited-59 ITR 555(SC), 2. Rajapalayam Mills Limited v. CIT -115 ITR 777(SC), 3. Garden Silk Wvg Factory-189 ITR 512(SC), 4. CIT v. Virmani Inds. P. Ltd. & Ors.-216 ITR 607(SC), ITA 5045/M/10 6 5. Rallies India Limited in ITA No. 4898/M/2006. In the light of the above decisions , the assessee company argued that the assessee company has set off the depreciation allowance for the year under consideration computed as per provisions of Section 32(1) of the Act against the long term capital gains for the year and suc…

M/S. Karnataka Instrade Corporation Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in part

ITA/339/2009HC Karnataka09 Oct 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 144Section 145Section 260

…e expenditure are allowable. The order passed by the Tribunal runs contrary to the law 16 laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/S. M/s.Virmani Industries Pvt. Limited reported in (1995) 216 ITR 607 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax V/S Rampur Timber and Turnery Co. Ltd., (Allahabad) (1973) 89 ITR 150 and also another judgment of this Court in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka V/S Kapila Textiles (P) Ltd. reported in (1981)129 ITR 458. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that denial of expenditure with…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Govind Nagar Sugar Limited

ITA/164/2008HC Delhi25 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 32(2)Section 80

…ITA No. 164/2008 Page 1 of 13 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 164/2008 Judgment Reserved on: 24.02.2011 % Date of Pronouncement:25.03.2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX …APPELLANT Through : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Anand, Advocate. Versus GOVIND NAGAR SUGAR LIMITED …… RESPONDENT Through : Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh and Mr. Dushyant, Advocate CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be…