How many judgments cite CIT v. VTM Ltd.?

49 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. VTM Ltd. (319 ITR 336), spanning 2016 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. VTM Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10AA, Section 234B, Section 32(1)(iia), Section 32AC, Section 35(2AB), Section 80P(2)(b).

CIT v. VTM Ltd.

319 ITR 336High Court2009#2384 most cited

What is CIT v. VTM Ltd. authority for?

An assessee engaged in the manufacture or production of an article or thing is entitled to additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery or plant, such as a windmill for power generation, even if it is not directly used in the primary manufacturing activity.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. VTM Ltd. · 319 ITR 336 · Section 32(1)(iia) · additional depreciation · windmill · power generation · manufacturing business · new plant and machinery · not directly used in manufacturing · textile manufacturer

Also reported as

187 Taxmann 319

Sections most often in play

Section 10AA Section 234B Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32AC Section 35(2AB)Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(29ba)section 32(1)(iia)additional depreciation section 32(1)section 32 written down value miscellaneous application section 40 revenue expenditure section 37 section 37(1)section 14a

Judgments citing CIT v. VTM Ltd.

INFOSYS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 962/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)

Section 1Section 10ASection 2Section 234BSection 250Section 32A

…the new machinery or plant need not be used in manufacture or production of any article or thing. The learned counsel has before us relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court High Court in the case of CIT v. VTM Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 319/12009] 319 ITR 336 (Mad.) wherein the assessee-company was engaged in the business of . Page 11 of 18 manufacture of textile goods. During the relevant assessment year, it had set up a wind mill for generation of power and claimed additional depreciation thereon under section 32(1)(iia). The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the assessee wa…

HASSAN CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LIMITED,HASSAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, HASSAN

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

ITA 682/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramanathan, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…the new machinery or plant need not be used in manufacture or production of any article or thing. The learned counsel has before us relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court High Court in the case of CIT v. VTM Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 319/[2009] 319 ITR 336 (Mad.) wherein the assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacture of textile goods. During the relevant . Page 4 of 7 assessment year, it had set up a wind mill for generation of power and claimed additional depreciation thereon under section 32(1)(iia). The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the assessee was…

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI vs. M/S CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION CONSORTIUM LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, aforesaid grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2799/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2799/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. The Dcit, M/S. Consolidated Corporate Circle-1(2), Construction Chennai. Consortium Ltd., No.3, Ii Link Street, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaacc 4214 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 10Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ing, granted additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. In our opinion, the findings of the CIT(A) is justified and the contention of the Revenue is not sustainable in view of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs VTM Ltd, 319 ITR 336, wherein held that the assessee which was a manufacturer of textile goods when set up a windmill was entitled to additional depreciation. Same view was taken by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sheela Clinic in I.T.A. No. 481/Mds/2011 dated 30.5.2011, by observing that generation of electricity is an independent activity though originally the…

PARISONS FOODS PRIVATE LTD,CALICUT vs. DCIT , CIRCLE 1(1), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 229/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.(Through Virtual Hearing) Parisons Foods Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 6/1183, Kunhipari Buildins Kozhikode Calicut 673032 Vs. Pan – Aaccp2898J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Surendranath Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ilaiyaraja, K.S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 01.02.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is In The Business Of Refining & Sale Of Crude Edible Oil & Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.10.2005 & The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act By Accepting The Returns. Subsequently The Cit Invoked His Suo Moto Revision Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act To Disallow The Additional Depreciation Claimed U/S 32(1)(Iia) Of The Act & Directed The Ao To Complete The Assessment De Novo By Considering The Claim Of Additional Depreciation Of 15%. Thereafter The Ld. Ao

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja, K.S., Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHINBENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri Soundararajan K., Judicial Member (Through virtual hearing) Parisons Foods Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Circle - 1(1) 6/1183, Kunhipari Buildins Kozhikode Calicut 673032 vs. PAN – AACCP2898J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Surendranath Rao, CA Revenue by: Shri Ilaiyaraja, K.S., Sr. DR Date of hearing: 11.06.2024 Date of pronouncement: 27.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee challenges the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (CIT(A)) dated 01.02.2023…

DILIP BUILDCON LTD ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 163/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Acit Central-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent /Revenue) Pan: Aaccd 6124 B Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32A

…production of any article or thing. The learned counsel has before us relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Page 22 of 25 Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Assessment year 2018-19 Madras High Court High Court in the case of CIT v. VTM Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 319/[2009] 319 ITR 336 (Mad.) wherein the assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacture of textile goods. During the relevant assessment year, it had set up a wind mill for generation of power and claimed additional depreciation thereon under section 32(1)(iia). The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the assessee was engaged only in…

AIR CONTRAL INDIA PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1538/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri B. B. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…vision of the Act and Memorandum to the Finance Act, 2012 in relation to AY. 2013-14 and subsequent assessment years only. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred by relying on the decision of CIT Vs. VTM Ltd. (319 ITR 336), wherein the facts of the case were different being the case of textile manufacturer whereas the assessee is a trader and hence the decision relied upon is not applicable being distinguishable on facts”. 3. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Briefly stated facts are that assessee is engaged…

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

…CIT(A) failed to consider that the CIT(A) vide his order in 146/14- 15 dated 29.04.2016 for the Asst. year 2011-12 dismissed the assessee's appeal on a similar issue by distinguishing the facts of the High Court's decision in the case of CIT vs. VTM cited in 319 ITR 336 with that of the assessee's case. 4. It is submitted that the order of CIT(A) for the Asst. year 2011-12 on a similar issue was confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT vide its order in 319, 2324, 442 & 2468/Mds/2016 dt. 10.7.2017. As evident, the sole subject matter of appeal is claim of additional depreciation. 2. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that similar is…

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)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ’सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ%वाल ,लेखा सद( के सम । BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1289/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) DCIT Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle -1, 1212, Trichy Road, Vs. Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACB-8933-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee by : Shri.Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. AR Revenue by : Shri D. Manoj…

M/S HASSAN CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD ,HASSAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, HASSAN

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

ITA 1509/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80HSection 80ISection 80P(2)(e)

…the new machinery or plant need not be used in manufacture or production of any article or thing. The learned counsel has before us relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court High Court in the case of CIT v. VTM Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 319/[2009] 319 ITR 336 (Mad.) wherein the assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacture of textile goods. During the relevant assessment year, it had set up a wind mill for generation of power and claimed additional depreciation thereon under section 32(1)(iia). The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the assessee was engaged only in…