CIT v. VTM Ltd.

319 ITR 336High Court2009#2359 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.

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 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 10AASection 234BSection 32(1)(iia)Section 32ACSection 35(2AB)Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(29ba)section 32(1)(iia)additional depreciationsection 32(1)section 32written down valuemiscellaneous applicationsection 40revenue expendituresection 37section 37(1)section 14a

Judgments citing CIT v. VTM Ltd.

Abbott Healthcare P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1109/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Memer I.T.A. No. 1109/Mum/2013 (Assessment Year: 2006-07)

Section 143Section 148Section 32

…s, and since vaporizers are not installed at its office premises, the sum is qualified for additional depreciation. The Ld. AR placed his relevance on; 1. CIT Vs. Diamines and Chemicals Ltd. reported in 109 DTR (Guj) 62. 2. CIT Vs. VTM Ltd. reported in (2009) 319 ITR 336 (Mad). 6. The Ld. DR relies on the order of DRP. 7. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v Is. Cosmo Films Ltd., bearing ITA No. 2831/Del/2007, inter-alia had the occasion to examine the provisions relating to the grant of additional depreciation. The Tribunal held therein that, the assessee would be able to claim the additional de…

ACIT, Kota vs. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota

ITA 82/JPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri H.V. Gurjar (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

…lant (other than ships and ACIT, Circle-1, Kota vs. M/s Mangalam Cement Ltd. Kota aircraft) and not for wind mill, which was engaged in power generation. It was held that in view of the decision of Madras High Court rendered in case of CIT Vs. VTM Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 336, assessee was entitled to additional depreciation on the wind mill. CIT Vs. VTM Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 336 (Mad.)(HC): In this case, assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture of textile goods. It set up a windmill for generation of power and claimed additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia). AO held that setting up of a windmill has…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 830/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Jt.CITFor Respondent: Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37Section 37(1)

…Grounds 3.1 to 3.5), again, as was the common contention of the parties before us, stands decided in the assessee’s favour by the tribunal in the assessee’s own case for earlier years following the decision by the Hon’ble High Court in CIT v. VTM Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 336 (Mad); the ld. AR alluding to para 21 of the tribunal’s order supra for AY 2009-10 (in ITA No. 702/2014), which reads as under; the tribunal upholding the assessee’s claim for additional depreciation in respect of its’ separate unit for manufacture of concrete mix: “21. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The assess…

Atul Shivdas Ganatra, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4899/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: A. Ramachandran, D.R
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…7 (URO) (Delhi) (Trib.), considered this decision while dealing with the activity of generation of electricity with respect of additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) and ruled in favour of assessee. Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. VTM Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 336 (Mad.) (HC) examined the same issue and dismissed the revenue appeal seeking to disallow additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) of the Act with respect of setting up a windmill by a manufacturer of textile goods. Thus, following the ratio of VMT Ltd.(supra) issue has been decided in favour of assessee with regard to addition depreciation u/s.32(1…

Abott India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3472/Mum/2013 and ITA No

ITA 832/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Morya Pratap
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…ates and since vaporizers are not installed at its office premises, the sum is qualified for additional depreciation. The Ld.AR placed his relevance on; 1. CIT vs. Diamines and Chemicals Ltd. reported in 109 DTR(Guj) 62. 2. CIT vs. VTM Ltd. reported in (2009) 319 ITR 336(Mad). 6. The Ld. DR relies on the order of DRP. 5. We have perused the orders passed by the authorities below, the submission by both the parties and the judgments relied upon by the ld.AR. before we start with our observation, Section 32(1)(iia), as it stood at the relevant assessment year, is under; Depreciation. 32• (1) In respect of depre…

Abbott India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3472/Mum/2013 and ITA No

ITA 3472/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Morya Pratap
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…ates and since vaporizers are not installed at its office premises, the sum is qualified for additional depreciation. The Ld.AR placed his relevance on; 1. CIT vs. Diamines and Chemicals Ltd. reported in 109 DTR(Guj) 62. 2. CIT vs. VTM Ltd. reported in (2009) 319 ITR 336(Mad). 6. The Ld. DR relies on the order of DRP. 5. We have perused the orders passed by the authorities below, the submission by both the parties and the judgments relied upon by the ld.AR. before we start with our observation, Section 32(1)(iia), as it stood at the relevant assessment year, is under; Depreciation. 32• (1) In respect of depre…

Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1458/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)

…no appeal was preferred by the revenue to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court against the order of the Delhi Tribunal supra. The assessee also placed on record before the ld CIT the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs VTM Ltd reported in 319 ITR 336 (Mad) wherein, the Hon’ble Madras High Court dismissed the revenue’s appeal. It would be pertinent to understand the question raised before the Hon’ble Madras High Court which is reproduced hereunder:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that generation of power by windmill would amount to…

V2 Retail Limited(Formerly Known As Vishal Retail Ltd), Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) Under-IV, Kolkata

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

ITA 2413/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: S/Shri K.K.Chhaparia, FCA & Nirav Seth, ACAFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…iation on Plant & Machinery installed at retail outlet of a manufacturing company.” 2.3. The Ld. AR reiterated the same submissions as submitted before the lower authorities. In addition, he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. V T M Ltd. 319 ITR 336 (Madras) & (ii) CIT Vs. Diamines & Chemicals Ltd. 271 CTR 98 (Guj). In both the decisions it was held that provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the act does not state setting up of new plant and machinery which should have any operational connectivity to the article or thing that was already being manufactured by the assessee. 2.4. In response t…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Kanishk Steel Industries Ltd., Chennai

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2955/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Dr. B. Nischal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri V. Ravichandran, CA
Section 32(1)(iia)

…ficer disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that generation of electricity does not amount to production of thing or article. Placing reliance on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in 3 I.T.A. No.2955/Mds/14 CIT v. VTM Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 336, the Ld. representative submitted that the assessee before the Madras High Court claimed additional depreciation on the windmill. The electricity generated by the windmill was used for captive consumption by the assessee. The Madras High Court further found that the provisions of the Act does not state that setting up of machinery or plant sh…