How many judgments cite DCIT v. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital?

14 judgments on BharatTax cite DCIT v. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital (290 ITR 353), spanning 2009 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DCIT v. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 11(2), Section 143(3), Section 250.

DCIT v. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital

290 ITR 353High Court#7821 most cited

What is DCIT v. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital authority for?

Depreciation cannot be claimed on machinery if there is no evidence of its actual use during the assessment year, even if it has been installed. Mere readiness for use is insufficient for depreciation claims.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2024.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital · section 11(2) · section 143(3) · put to use · depreciation · actual use · installation · assessment year · claim depreciation

Sections most often in play

Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

put to use section 143(3)

Judgments citing DCIT v. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital

Shri Jain Udyog Gruha, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 2702/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhrishri Jain Udyog Gruha Vs. Ito(Exemp). Ward 2(3), 109-117, Piramal Chamber, C.P. Tank Road, Lalbaug, Near Madhavabag, Mumbai-400012. C.P Tank, Mumbai-400004. Pan/Gir No. Aabts9375B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…nd, therefore, assessee was entitled to exemption under section 11 - Held, yes [Paras 15 and 17] [In favour of assessee] Words and Phrases: Word 'applied' as occurring in section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961” 2. DIT(E) Vs. Eternal Science of Man’s S [290 ITR 353] “Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Charitable or religious trust Exemption of income from property held under Assessee- trust accumulated income for six different objects out of 22 objects for which trust had been established - Tribunal allowed accumulation of income by assessee, for a plurality of purposes - Revenue's case was that Tribu…

ACIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. L & T Ltd ( Datar Switch Gear Ltd Merged ), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3806/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2004-05

Section 143(3)

…to claim depreciation on the cost of 14,206 units. In support of these contentions, the Ld D.R placed his reliance on the following case laws:- (a) DCIT vs. Sheth & Sura Engg (P) Ltd (2008)(110 ITD 39)(Pune)(TM) (b) DCIT vs. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital (2007)(290 ITR 353)(Kar) 8 M/s. L&T Ltd. (Datar Switch Gear Ltd. merged) (c) ACIT vs. DHL Operations BV (2007)(13 SOT 581)(SB). The Ld D.R further submitted that the assets should be actually used for the purposes of business in order to claim depreciation. Mere fact that the asset is ready for use is not sufficient. In support of this proposition, the Ld D.R pl…

Mr. Syed Mustafa Kamal Pasha, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 705/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Mr.Syed Mustafa Kamal Pasha, Deputy Commissioner No.3, 4Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Vs. Jayamahal Extension, Circle - 6(2)(1) Bangalore Bangalore Pan – Adcpk8497N Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Sri Sanketh Nayak, CA

Section 133(6)

…ce on various decisions as cited above and submitted that once the wind mill is installed and commissioned in the assessment year under consideration, the assessee is entitled for depreciation on it. However, in the case of DCIT Vs. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital [290 ITR 353](KA) wherein held that the machinery has not been actually put to use, the depreciation cannot be granted. Further, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of B.Malini and Co. Vs. CIT [214 ITR 192] (Bom) held that there was a gap of one year between installation of machinery and its usage, and hence it was held that no depreciation can be claimed.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri B G Channappa, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2104/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234Section 69B

…plant was established. The decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chamundeshwari Sugar Ltd., 309 ITR 326 (Kar) is squarely applicable, wherein it was distinguished the earlier judgment in the case of DCIT Vs. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital 290 ITR 353 and observed that hospital has brought certain machinery and no evidence was placed to prove its use during the asst. year but claimed depreciation. However, in the present case solar plant was put to use and power was generated. In our opinion, solar plant was used for generation of electricity. Thus the date on which the asset has been put to u…

Esab India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for

ITA 1844/CHNY/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Reddi Prakash. G, ACAFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, CIT

Section 143(3)

…eld for disposal. Since, the assets were not put to use and were held for disposal, no depreciation is admissible on such assets. In this regard, the AO relied on the Karnataka High Court decision in the case of DCIT vs Yellamma Dasappa Hospital reported in 290 ITR 353 (kar). Further, the Ld. DR invited our attention to the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), wherein, the Ld. CIT(A) has taken note of the fact that the assessee’s auditor has categorically stated that the entire fixed assets of Kalwa unit were not used for the purpose of business during the year under consideration. Since, the assessee is having unit…

M/S Filtrex Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2162/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT

…n’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. O.P.Khanna & Sons (1982)(101 taxman 243). 17. On the contrary, the Ld D.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Yellamma Dasappa hospital (290 ITR 353) to contend that the asset has to be actually used for claiming depreciation u/s 32 of the Act and hence “asset was ready to use” theory is not available to IT(TP)A No.2162/Bang/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3330/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 16 the assessee. The Ld D.R further placed his reliance on the order of Ld CIT(A) and submitted the assessee could not have u…

M/S. Business India Television International Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03 is dismissed; whereas the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment

ITA 1358/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O. P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Subhakant Sahu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…ble High Court that where assets were not at all used due to lock out, depreciation cannot be allowed. Reliance is also placed on the decisions in Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 25 ITR 265(SC); DCIT vs. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital (2007) 159 Taxman 58/290 ITR 353 (Kar.) and CIT vs. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. (1982) 133 ITR 884 (Guj.)/CIT vs. Jiwaji Rao Sugar Co. Ltd. (1969) 71 ITR 319 (MP) (app.)” 12 I.T.A. No.4371, 4419/Del/2010 & 1358/Del/2013 16. The brief facts qua the aforesaid ground are that assessee company has claimed depreciation of Rs.59,99,297/- on plant and machinery and Rs.36,395/- on distribution…

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Sakthi Sugars Ltd., Coimbatore

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

ITA 478/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.478/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 28

…r found that there was no production or commercial activity in the unit, hence the Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation since the asset was not put to use. The AO relied on the decision of Dy.CIT vs.Yellamma Dasappa Hospital [(2007) 159 Taxmann 58/290 ITR 353 (Kar) (HC)]. The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO as per following discussion. It is also to be considered that the Beverages Division although a separate unit of M/s. Sakthi Sugars Ltd., the line of business is completely different. It is also a fact that for each unit of the business, separate block of assets and Profit & Loss A…

Sakthi Sugars Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 430/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.478/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 28

Smt. Maitreyee Das, Purba Medinipur vs. I.to WD - 1, Haldia

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 780/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.780/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.L.Bhowmick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dinabandhu Naskar, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No.780/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Maitreyee Das -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-1, Purba Medinipur Haldia [PAN : AEFPD 0377 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri K.L.Bhowmick, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Dinabandhu Naskar, JCIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 12.07.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 05.12.2012 of CIT(A)- XXXIII, Kolkata, relating to AY 2009-10. 2. Ground No.1…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Encorp E Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 4461/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 1799/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), M-4, Surya Mansion, Kausalya Park, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos. 4460 & 4461/Del/2011 : Asstt. Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), Office No. 202, F-46, Bhagat Singh New Delhi Market, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce3129L Assessee By : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. Kuldip Singh, JM ITA No. 1799/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), M-4, Surya Mansion, Kausalya Park, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA Nos. 4460 & 4461/Del/2011 : Asstt. Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), Office No. 202, F-46, Bhagat Singh New Delhi Market, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCE3129L Assessee by : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Encorp E Service Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 1799/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/203/2009HC Delhi19 Aug 2009

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43

…ITA No. 203/2009 & ITA No. 60/2009 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 203/2009 & ITA No. 60/2009 Reserved on : July 09, 2009 Date of decision : August 19, 2009 1. ITA No. 203/2009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Appellant. Through: Ms. P.L. Bansal with Mr. Paras Chaudhary, Ms. Anshul Sharma, Advocates VERSUS YAMAHA MOTOR INDIA PVT. LTD. ....Respondent Through: Mr. Vijay Nair, Mr. Lalan Sinha, Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Yamaha Motor India P.Ltd

ITA - 60 / 2009HC Delhi09 Jul 2009

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iii)Section 43Section 43(6)(c)Section 50(2)

…ed for the purposes of the business" as found in Section 32. The Revenue contends that passive use is excluded whereas the assessee contends that passive use is included. The Revenue relies upon Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital, 290 ITR 353, Commissioner of income-tax vs. Oriental Coal Ltd., 206 ITR 682 and Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Anr., 267 ITR 768. The counsel for the assessee relied upon Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Nahar Exports Ltd., 296 ITR 419, Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Vir Khanna, 306 ITR 14. - 4. The issue, therefore, needs to…