CIT vs Revathi 245 ITR 686 (Mad.), CIT v. Thanthai PT Corporation

362 ITR 508Reported decision2014#24669 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing CIT vs Revathi 245 ITR 686 (Mad.), CIT v. Thanthai PT Corporation

Sanjay G Vadodaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4419/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Sanjay G. Vadodaria, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 29/B Roop Kamal 426, S.V. 25(3)(4), Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400067 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepv9502A यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Mrs. Zarna P. Chandwani & Mr. Pradeep Chandwani याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Vishwas Mundhe-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

Section 32oSection 42

…(SC), relying on CIT vs Poddar Cements Pvt. Ltd. 226 ITR 625 (SC) held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Revathi 245 ITR 686 (Mad.), CIT vs Thanthai PT Corporation 248 ITR 632 (Mad.), CIT vs WEP Perferals Ltd. (2014) 362 ITR 508 (Karn.) and CIT vs Jawhar Kala Kendra (2014) 362 ITR 515 (Raj.) supports the case of the assessee. 10 Sanjay G. Vadodaria 2.5. The ratio laid down in ICDS Ltd. Vs CIT (2013) 350 ITR 527 (SC), Prkash Leasing Ltd. Vs DCIT (2013) 356 ITR 179 (Karn.), CIT vs Biad Leasing and Finance Company Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 413 (Raj.), CIT vs H.B. Leasing and Fin…

Premeshwar Creations P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6852/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Permeshwar Creations Dcit-8(2), Pvt. Ltd. Room No.209, बनाम/ Plot No.52, 7Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Midc Marol, M.K. Road, Andheri(E), Churchgate, Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcp3517F

Section 32

…concept of ownership. Assistance from the law laid down therein can be taken for finding out the meaning of the term ‘owned as accruing in section 32(1) of the Act, Maysore Minerals vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775, 778, 780 (SC), CIT vs WEP Peripherals Ltd. (2014) 362 ITR 508 (Karn.) and CIT vs Jawahar Kala Kendra (2014) 362 ITR 515 (Raj.). Another decision from Hon'ble Madras High Court in A.M.P. Mudaliyar vs CIT 228 ITR 454, 459 (mad.) throws light on the explanation ‘owned by the assessee’. Following the Madras decision (228 ITR 454), it was held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Taxspin Engineering and Maufac…

Kedia Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Kedia Shares & Stock Acit, Brokers Limited, Circle-4(3), बनाम/ 418, Commerce House, Room No.649, 6Th Floor, Vs. 140, Nagindas Master Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400023 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaack2528E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 32oSection 42

…(SC), relying on CIT vs Poddar Cements Pvt. Ltd. 226 ITR 625 (SC) held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Revathi 245 ITR 686 (Mad.), CIT vs Thanthai PT Corporation 248 ITR 632 (Mad.), CIT vs WEP Perferals Ltd. (2014) 362 ITR 508 (Karn.) and CIT vs Jawhar Kala Kendra (2014) 362 ITR 515 (Raj.) supports the case of the assessee. 2.5. The ratio laid down in ICDS Ltd. Vs CIT (2013) 350 ITR 527 (SC), Prkash Leasing Ltd. Vs DCIT (2013) 356 ITR 179 (Karn.), CIT vs Biad Leasing and Finance Company Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 413 (Raj.), CIT vs H.B. Leasing and Finance Ltd. (2014) 360 IT…