Commissioner of Income Tax v. Panacea Biotech Ltd.

324 ITR 311High Court2010#9002 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2022.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 80A(6)Section 80IASection 80IA(8)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Panacea Biotech Ltd.

FACIT SALES(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL-5, KOLKATA

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

ITA 406/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…al). ii) CIT vs. R.K. Construction (2009) 313 ITR 65 (Guj). iii) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2010) 194 Taxman 504 (Del). iv) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). v) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). vi) CIT vs. Deepak Mittal, 324 ITR 311 (P&H). vii) Smt. Juthika Kar vs. ITO [ITA No.1128/Kol/2009, order dated 16.05.2012]. 8 I.T.A. No.: 406/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Facit Sales Private Limited. 7. It was also submitted that no independent enquiry has been made by ld. Pr. CIT on his own and has solely acted on the information received by the Investigation Wing about s…

SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1607/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT DR &
Section 250(6)

…CIT Vs. Geo Tech Construction Corporation (2000) 244 ITR 452 b. CIT Vs. Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd (2001) 247 ITR 12 I.T.A No. 1607 & 1533/Ahd/2016 & Ors. A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 29 Sabarmati Gas Limited vs. ACIT c. CIT Vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd (2010) 324 ITR 311 Wherein it was held that the appellant can claim depreciation once the assets is ready to use. 1.7 The appellant further respectfully submits that the impugned disallowance on account of depreciation of Rs. 2,13,31,9857- as confirmed by the learned CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 48. The above issue Relates to disallowance of depreciation on assets…

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1533/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT DR &
Section 250(6)

…CIT Vs. Geo Tech Construction Corporation (2000) 244 ITR 452 b. CIT Vs. Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd (2001) 247 ITR 12 I.T.A No. 1607 & 1533/Ahd/2016 & Ors. A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 29 Sabarmati Gas Limited vs. ACIT c. CIT Vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd (2010) 324 ITR 311 Wherein it was held that the appellant can claim depreciation once the assets is ready to use. 1.7 The appellant further respectfully submits that the impugned disallowance on account of depreciation of Rs. 2,13,31,9857- as confirmed by the learned CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 48. The above issue Relates to disallowance of depreciation on assets…

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…Ltd. v. ITO: 2013 (3) TMI 434 63 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. " CIT vs. OswalWoollen Mills Limited: 206 CTR 141 (P&H) " CIT vs. Norplex Oak India : 198 Taxman 470 (Cal) " CIT vs. Premier Industries (India) Ltd.: 323 ITR 672 (MP) " CIT vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd.: 324 ITR 311 (Del.) " CIT vs. Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 297 (Del) " ACIT v. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd.: 126 TTJ 865 (Chennai) (ITAT) 91. It was further submitted by AR that assets of Part A of non-functional units were kept as standby assets for the purpose of smooth functioning of business of the Assessee. It is, however, to be note…

INDEXONE TRADECONE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 21/JPR/2018[2013-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Aug 2018AY 2013-13
For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)

…in disallowing depreciation of Rs.3,22,197/- which was used for business purposes, otherwise also, depreciation cannot be denied on block of asset ready for use. Reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements: (1) CIT vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 311(AII): When the asset is ready for use, entitled to depreciation. (2) CIT Vs. Sonal Gum Industries (2010)233 CTR (Guj) 516: User of asset. Once it is found that assets are used for business, it is not necessary that all the items filling within block of assets have to be simultaneously used for being entitled to depreciation. (3) CIT Vs. Mentha…

DCIT 13(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHARDA WORLDWIDE EXPORTS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3804/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: S/Shri Kunal Beswal/Anuj KishnadwalaFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja -DR
Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई “एफ एफ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई एफ एफ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “F”Bench Mumbai एवं रिवश सूद रिवश सूद रिवश सूद, "याियक रिवश सूद सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3804/Mum/2016, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील…

KNIGHT RIDERS SPORTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1307/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Knight Riders Sports Acit, Central Circle-29, Private Limited, Deepvan बिधम/ Mumbai. Anand Vihar Society, 20Th Vs. Road, Khar (W), Mumbai-400 052 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aadck3118M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…. Similarly, expenses booked on accrual basis should be allowed as deduction in the period in which they have been incurred and pertain to, irrespective of the fact whether they have been paid out or not.  Further, in the case of CIT vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd (324 ITR 311) (Del), the Delhi High Court has held that in mercantile method of accounting, incurring of expenditure is not based on payment but on liability to pay. In view of the above, the Appellant prays before your Honour that the amount debited to profit and loss account by the Appellant amounting to Rs.37,54,50,000/- (i.e Rs.30,03,60,000/- plus Rs.7,50…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJAN NANDA

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those

ITA/400/2008HC Delhi16 Dec 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…the assessee was to reduce its tax liability to the State. He also drew our ITA No.400 of 2008, etc. Page 20 of 49 attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd. [(2010) 324 ITR 311 (Del.) wherein this Court has observed in connection with the claim of the assessee for allowability of depreciation on purchase of a flat towards the end of the previous year that obviously, the assessee must have purchased this flat within the relevant financial year to take benefit of depreciation as tax planning. 24. Rebutting the ar…

CIT vs. ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE LTD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those

ITA/175/2011HC Delhi16 Dec 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…uch a transaction by the assessee was to reduce its tax liability to the State. He also drew our ITA No.400 of-2008, etc. Page 19 of 49 attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of ComsnissSoner of Income Tssx Vs, 'PatUBceB Bsotech Ltd!, ^ [(2010) 324 ITR 311 (Del.) wherein this Court has observed in connection with the claim of the assessee for allowability of depreciation on purchase of a flat towards the end of the previous year that obviously, the assessee must have purchased this flat within the relevant financial year to take benefit of depreciation as tax planning. 24. Rebutting the arguments o…

CIT vs. NARESH TREHAN

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those

ITA/2073/2010HC Delhi16 Dec 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…uch a transaction by the assessee was to reduce its tax liability to the State. He also drew our ITA No.400 of 2008, etc. Page 19 of 49 7f 24. attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs' Panacea Biotech Ltd' t(2010) 324 ITR 311 (Del.) wherein this court has observed in connection with the claim of the assessee for allowability of depreciation on purchase of a flat towards the end of the previous year that obviously, the assessee must have purchased this flat within the relevant financial year to take benefit of depreciation as tax planning. Rebutting the arguments of Mr…

CIT vs. ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE LTD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those

ITA - 175 / 2011HC Delhi16 Dec 2011

…by the assessee was to reduce its tax liability to the State. He also drew our ITA No.400 of-2008, etc. Page 19 of 49 2011:DHC:11866-DB attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of ComsnissSoner of Income Tssx Vs, 'PatUBceB Bsotech Ltd!, ^ [(2010) 324 ITR 311 (Del.) wherein this Court has observed in connection with the claim of the assessee for allowability of depreciation on purchase of a flat towards the end of the previous year that obviously, the assessee must have purchased this flat within the relevant financial year to take benefit of depreciation as tax planning. 24. Rebutting the arguments o…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJAN NANDA

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those

ITA - 400 / 2008HC Delhi16 Dec 2011

…s to reduce its tax liability to the State. He also drew our 2011:DHC:6493-DB ITA No.400 of 2008, etc. Page 20 of 49 attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd. [(2010) 324 ITR 311 (Del.) wherein this Court has observed in connection with the claim of the assessee for allowability of depreciation on purchase of a flat towards the end of the previous year that obviously, the assessee must have purchased this flat within the relevant financial year to take benefit of depreciation as tax planning. 24. Rebutting the ar…

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Panacea Biotech Ltd. (324 ITR 311) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax