Dabur India Ltd. v. ACIT

37 Taxmann.com 289Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#4747 most cited

What is Dabur India Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Depreciation is not allowable on tenancy rights as they are not considered intangible assets falling within the meaning of Explanation to Section 32(1). The restriction of depreciation applies to tangible and intangible assets specifically enumerated in Section 32.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Dabur India Ltd v ACIT · Section 32 · depreciation on intangible assets · tenancy rights · commercial rights · Explanation to Section 32(1) · ITAT Mumbai

Also reported as

159 TTJ 563

Issues it is cited on

section 24asection 35esection 269uasection 75section 52section 32(1)(ii)interest under section 201(1a)commercial rightssection 192section 32(1)put to useintangible assets

Judgments citing Dabur India Ltd. v. ACIT

Uma Polymers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3329/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2011-12
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM M/s. Uma Polymers Ltd., Vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), Mumbai 115, Raheja Plaza of Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053 PAN/GIR No. AAACU0748E Appellant) .. Respondent) DCIT CC4(4), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Uma Polymers Ltd., 115, Raheja Plaza of Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053 PAN/GIR No. AAACU0748E Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajendra Jain Revenue by Ms. Pooja Swaroop Date of Hearing 09/02/2017 Date of Pronouncement 03/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the cros…

Haldyan Corporation Ltd Formlery Known As Haldyn Glass Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)1, Mumbai

ITA 4704/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…hen automatically an adjustment has to be made in view of clause (f) to Explanation 1 to section 115JB (2). In his support, he placed reliance upon the following judgments: 1. Dy. CIT vs Sobha Devlopers ITA No.1410/Bang/2013 |(Bang) 2. Dabur India Ltd vs ACIT 37 Taxmann.com 289(Mum) 3. ITO vs RBK Share Broking Pvt Ltd 37 Taxman.com 128 (Bom) He, therefore, requested that orders of the lower authorities should be upheld. 4. We have gone through the orders of the lower authorities as well as submissions made by both the sides. It is well settled that there is no estoppel against law. Thus, merely because disallowan…

M/S. Saint Gobain Glass India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 2096/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2096/Mds/2011 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/s. Saint Gobain Glass India Pvt.Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Plot No.A-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Income Tax, Sriperumbudur-602 105. Large Taxpayer Unit, Kanchipuram Dist. Chennai. PAN: AABCS4338M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant…

Saroj Sales Organization, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 2399/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Saroj Sales Organisation, Ito 16(1)(4), Plot No.A/62-63, Mumbai Vs. Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan: Aaafs 3944H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. Revenue By : Shri B. Yadagiri, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2015

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Yadagiri, D.R
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 55(2)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Saroj Sales Organisation, ITO 16(1)(4), Plot No.A/62-63, Mumbai Vs. MIDC, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093 PAN: AAAFS 3944H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. Revenue by : Shri B. Yadagiri, D.R. Date of Hearing : 30.10.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 11.12.2015 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 13.01.2012 of the Commiss…

DCIT Cen Cir 18 & 19, Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4439/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: - 2008-09 Dcit,Central Circle-18 & 19 V. Viraj Profiles Limited Mumbai 10,Imperial Chamber,Wilson Road, Ballard Estate,Mumbai- 400 038 Pan/Gir No. Aabcv1740N Appellant Respondent

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 80G

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, F,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी र"मत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year: - 2008-09 DCIT,Central Circle-18 & 19 v. Viraj Profiles Limited Mumbai 10,Imperial Chamber,Wilson Road, Ballard Estate,Mumbai- 400 038 PAN/GIR No. AABCV1740N Appellant Respondent Revenue By Ms. Lata Sunder Assessee By Ms Bhumika Vora Date of hearing 08.10.2015 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2015 ORDER Per Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member This appe…