Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT

267 ITR 768High Court2004#3941 most cited

What is Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT authority for?

A non-user of a business unit for six years is not considered a temporary non-user, especially if the unit was closed due to non-viability.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT · temporary non-user · business unit · non-viability · closure

Issues it is cited on

section 41(2)ready for useconstruction pesection 2(11)section 43(6)commercial rightsemployees contribution to pfsection 32(1)written down valueblock of assetsput to useshort term capital gains

Judgments citing Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3357/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…, CIT v. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. [1982] 133 ITR 884 229 ITR 548 (Guj.), Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 15 ITAs No.3725, 5467, 5468/Del/2015 ITAs No.3354, 2719, 2798, 3355, 3356, 3357 & 2884/Del/2016 (Ker.), Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 768 (Bom.)]. Though we are subscribing in view of the judgments of our own High Court, at the same time we would not like to give the expression a meaning which would make the provision superfluous. 23. Mr. C. S. Aggarwal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the assessee, had highlighted that the assessee was a 50 year old company and non-user of th…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3356/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…, CIT v. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. [1982] 133 ITR 884 229 ITR 548 (Guj.), Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 15 ITAs No.3725, 5467, 5468/Del/2015 ITAs No.3354, 2719, 2798, 3355, 3356, 3357 & 2884/Del/2016 (Ker.), Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 768 (Bom.)]. Though we are subscribing in view of the judgments of our own High Court, at the same time we would not like to give the expression a meaning which would make the provision superfluous. 23. Mr. C. S. Aggarwal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the assessee, had highlighted that the assessee was a 50 year old company and non-user of th…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3355/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…, CIT v. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. [1982] 133 ITR 884 229 ITR 548 (Guj.), Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 15 ITAs No.3725, 5467, 5468/Del/2015 ITAs No.3354, 2719, 2798, 3355, 3356, 3357 & 2884/Del/2016 (Ker.), Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 768 (Bom.)]. Though we are subscribing in view of the judgments of our own High Court, at the same time we would not like to give the expression a meaning which would make the provision superfluous. 23. Mr. C. S. Aggarwal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the assessee, had highlighted that the assessee was a 50 year old company and non-user of th…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 5468/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…, CIT v. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. [1982] 133 ITR 884 229 ITR 548 (Guj.), Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 15 ITAs No.3725, 5467, 5468/Del/2015 ITAs No.3354, 2719, 2798, 3355, 3356, 3357 & 2884/Del/2016 (Ker.), Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 768 (Bom.)]. Though we are subscribing in view of the judgments of our own High Court, at the same time we would not like to give the expression a meaning which would make the provision superfluous. 23. Mr. C. S. Aggarwal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the assessee, had highlighted that the assessee was a 50 year old company and non-user of th…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 5467/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…, CIT v. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. [1982] 133 ITR 884 229 ITR 548 (Guj.), Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 15 ITAs No.3725, 5467, 5468/Del/2015 ITAs No.3354, 2719, 2798, 3355, 3356, 3357 & 2884/Del/2016 (Ker.), Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 768 (Bom.)]. Though we are subscribing in view of the judgments of our own High Court, at the same time we would not like to give the expression a meaning which would make the provision superfluous. 23. Mr. C. S. Aggarwal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the assessee, had highlighted that the assessee was a 50 year old company and non-user of th…

ADVANSYS (INDIA) P. LTD,PUNE vs. ITO 1(1), PUNE

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

ITA 396/PUN/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.396/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Advansys (India) P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Pune. Plot No.5-7, Raisoni Industrial, Plot No.5-7, Raisoni Industrial Park, Phase-Ii, Mann, Hinjewadi, Pune- 411057. Pan : Aadca3607P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am : This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Pune Dated 20.11.2018. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Pune Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Appellant In Liminie Against The Assessment Order Passed Making Addition Of Rs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

…to depreciation claimed in the accounts and return of income filed, despite the fact that the appellant company was eligible to such depreciation for which decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of DineshkumarGulabchand Agarwal Vs. CIT (2004) 267 ITR 768 (Bom) and of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Integrated Technologies Ltd. in ITA No. 530/2011 dated 16th December 2011 (Del) had been 3 relied upon by the appellant before the Ld. CIT(A) who however had not considered the appellant’s submission to adjudicate the appeal on merit and merely for delay in filing…

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)

…ation. Mere fact that the asset is ready for use is not sufficient. In support of this proposition, the Ld D.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur bench in the case of Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agarwal vs. CIT (2004)(267 ITR 768). 17. The Ld A.R, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee was engaged in the business of leasing LTLMS capacitors to MSEB and it has actually leased out 17,294 units. He submitted that the assessee has claimed deductions in the earlier years and it has been allowed. Due to disputes between the assessee and MSEB, the remaining 14,206 units c…

ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 373/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

For Appellant: Shri S.C. BhadraFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(3)

…A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,82,76,775/-, made by the Assessing Officer towards “Depreciation on Beneficiation Plant ignoring the binding decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Gulabchand Agarwal vs CIT, (2004) 267 ITR 768 (Bom) which has been upheld by the Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP reported in (2004) 266 ITR (st) 106-Ed.” 27. Facts as emerged from the impugned order on the above issue are that the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed depreciation on beneficiation plant of Rs.8,82,76,775/-. The assessee had installed beneficiation plan…

SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

For Appellant: Shri S.C. BhadraFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(3)

…A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,82,76,775/-, made by the Assessing Officer towards “Depreciation on Beneficiation Plant ignoring the binding decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Gulabchand Agarwal vs CIT, (2004) 267 ITR 768 (Bom) which has been upheld by the Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP reported in (2004) 266 ITR (st) 106-Ed.” 27. Facts as emerged from the impugned order on the above issue are that the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed depreciation on beneficiation plant of Rs.8,82,76,775/-. The assessee had installed beneficiation plan…

M/S.EMCO DYESTUFF PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 703/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.703/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Emco Dyestuff Dcit 12(2)(1), Private Ltd. 5Th Floor, Unit No. 304, Earnest House, V. Western Edge, Nariman Point, W E Highway, Mumbai-400021 Dattapada Road, Borivali East, Mumbai-400066 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaace1167D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Snehal R. Shah Revenue By: Shri. V.K Chaturvedi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 10.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 703/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 16.10.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-20/Dcit-12(2)(1)/It-10040/16- 17 For Assessment Year 2013-14, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 11.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2013-14. I.T.A. No.703/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Shri. Snehal R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. V.K Chaturvedi (DR)
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.703/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिाम/ M/s. Emco Dyestuff DCIT 12(2)(1), Private Ltd. 5th Floor, Unit No. 304, Earnest House, v. Western Edge, Nariman Point, W E Highway, Mumbai-400021 Dattapada Road, Borivali East, Mumbai-400066 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AAACE1167D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Snehal R. Shah Revenue by: Shri. V.K Chaturvedi (DR) सुनवाई क…

ACIT 2(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN PLATINUM P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result the ground of appeal raised by revenue is

ITA 1097/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh.Pawan Singhacit,2(1). Hindustan Platinum Pvt. Ltd., Room No.561, 5Th Floor, C-12, Ttc Industrial Area, Aaykar Bhavan Pawane, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 20 Navi Mumbai 400 703. Vs. Pan:Aaach 1111J

For Appellant: Ms Pooja Swaroop Sr DRFor Respondent: Ms. Heena Doshi AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)Section 32

…sioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the assessee was entitled for depreciation on 31.03.2005 when the assessee had not actually used the machinery as required by section 32 of income tax act, and is upheld in the case of the Gulabchand Aggarwal Versus CIT [267 ITR 768(Bombay)] 2. At the outset of hearing the learned authorized representative (AR) of happily worded and does not bring out the proper controversy, but the ld CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by following the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2005-06 in ITA No.3352/M/2010…

ADANI ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1873/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)

…e of the machinery. ii. No manufacturing activity/trading activity were carried out and no depreciation is allowable during the relevant A.Y. Reliance is placed on judgment in case of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 768. It was held that depredation on asset ready for use but not actually used, cannot be allowed. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court In the above case held as under: "The word 'used' in section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, denotes that the asset has been actually used and not that it is merely ready for use. The expression 'used' means actually used…

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ROAD DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD,ORRISSA vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

ITA 622/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Thiruvananthapuram Road Dcit-14(3)(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ (Earlier Dcit-10(1), The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Room No.455, 4Th Floor, Vs. Plot No.C-22, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla M. K. Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aacct0547J Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-14(3)(1), Thiruvananthapuram Road (Earlier Dcit-10(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.455, 4Th Floor, The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Plot No.C-22, M. K. Road, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacct0547J

Section 143Section 253Section 32

…n to the provision of section 32 of the Act by contending that the assessee is not the owner of the asset, therefore, the depreciation was rightly denied to the assessee. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Dinesh Kumar Gulabchand Agarwal vs CIT (2004) 267 ITR 768 (Bom.). 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above, we are reproducing hereunder the order of the Tribunal dated 28/02/2018 in the case of M/s Andra 5 Thiruvananthapuram Road Development Company Ltd. ITA Nos.622, 636, 4346/Mum/2015 & C.O. No.25/Mum/2017 Pradesh Expressway L…

DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THIRVANTHAPURAM ROAD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

ITA 4346/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Thiruvananthapuram Road Dcit-14(3)(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ (Earlier Dcit-10(1), The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Room No.455, 4Th Floor, Vs. Plot No.C-22, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla M. K. Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aacct0547J Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-14(3)(1), Thiruvananthapuram Road (Earlier Dcit-10(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.455, 4Th Floor, The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Plot No.C-22, M. K. Road, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacct0547J

Section 143Section 253Section 32

…n to the provision of section 32 of the Act by contending that the assessee is not the owner of the asset, therefore, the depreciation was rightly denied to the assessee. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Dinesh Kumar Gulabchand Agarwal vs CIT (2004) 267 ITR 768 (Bom.). 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above, we are reproducing hereunder the order of the Tribunal dated 28/02/2018 in the case of M/s Andra 5 Thiruvananthapuram Road Development Company Ltd. ITA Nos.622, 636, 4346/Mum/2015 & C.O. No.25/Mum/2017 Pradesh Expressway L…

M/S. CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1858/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Refinery House, Manali, Vs. Tax, Chennai – 600 068 Company Circle-I(3), [Pan: Aaacm 4392C] Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: 07.09.2017
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…m and the second proviso also does not come into operation.’ Surely the user referred to by the Hon'ble Apex Court implies only an actual user. As we shall presently show, the same includes passive user as well. In Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 768 (Bom), it was held that the word ‘used’ in s. 32 denotes that the asset has been actually used and not merely ready for use. SLP against the same has been dismissed in [2004] 266 ITR (St.) 106. Passive user, given the nature of user, is only an actual user. Take, for example, the case of an electric generator which is used as a standby in case of…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(3), MUMBAI vs. NEPEAN HOLDING REALITY LLP., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5094/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Dcit, Central Circle – 7(3) Vs. M/S. Nepean Holding Reality Mumbai Llp, Room No.655, 6Th Floor 1001, Dalmal House, Aayakar Bhavan, J.P. Road, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaifn2753N Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 250

…llowance in respect of section 41(2) read with Sec.28(i) of the I.T, Act 1961, corresponding to Section 10(2) (vii), read with section 10(i) of the I.T. Act 1922 in respect of A.Y. 1945-46. Similarly the decision in the case of Dinesh Kumar Gulabchand Agarwal 267 ITR 768 is based on different facts of the case and is distinguishable. 6.3. In view of above discussion, it is held that the building premise at 36 Turner Road belonging to the appellant was used for the purpose of business during A.Y.2013-14 and the A.O. was not correct in disallowing depreciation of Rs.98,11,964/-. The A.O. is directed to allow the de…

CYBERSOL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2749/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 2749/Mum/2016 : (A.Y : 2012-13) M/S Cybersol Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito 8(1)(2) 524-527, Raheja Metroplex Room No.601-A, 6Th Floor (Ijmima) Aayakar Bhavan Behind Goregaon Sports Club M.K.Road Off Link Road, Malad West Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan : Aabcc3318B (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K Gopal / Ms Neha Pranjape प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Jintendra Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2017 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : /04/2017

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal /For Respondent: Shri Jintendra Kumar
Section 2Section 32Section 43(6)Section 50

…business, the depreciation is not allowable. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) agreed with the view of the Assessing Officer. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in the case of Dinesh Kumar Gulabchand Agarwal Vs. CIT [267 ITR 768], and the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Oriental Coal Company Ltd. [206 ITR 682]. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee before us vehemently reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. He further submits that Clause 11 of section 2 of Income Tax Act defines ‘Block of Assets’ as a ‘group of assets falling…

DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN REFRIGERATOR CO. LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the Revenues’ appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 941/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Arora & Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra KarkhanisFor Respondent: Shri T.A.Khan

…er being ownership (of the capital asset), for the claim of the depreciation allowance u/s. 32(1) of the Act. The word employed in the provision is ‘used’, as emphasized by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal vs. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 768 (Bom) (SLP against which stands dismissed by the Apex Court, reported at ([2004] 266 ITR (St.) 106), so that an asset, to be eligible for the claim of depreciation in its respect, is to be actually used, i.e., as the word ‘used’ occurring therein was considered by the Hon’ble Court as denoting, and that a ‘ready to use’ state shall not entitle a…

INDIAN REGRIGERATOR COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the Revenues’ appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3949/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Arora & Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra KarkhanisFor Respondent: Shri T.A.Khan

…er being ownership (of the capital asset), for the claim of the depreciation allowance u/s. 32(1) of the Act. The word employed in the provision is ‘used’, as emphasized by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal vs. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 768 (Bom) (SLP against which stands dismissed by the Apex Court, reported at ([2004] 266 ITR (St.) 106), so that an asset, to be eligible for the claim of depreciation in its respect, is to be actually used, i.e., as the word ‘used’ occurring therein was considered by the Hon’ble Court as denoting, and that a ‘ready to use’ state shall not entitle a…

ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI vs. G SHOES EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6209/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5736/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) G. Shoes Exports Asst. Cit-25(1)/Cit City 25 बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, 1, Hitex Industrial Estate, S. V. Road, Dahisar (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Mumbai-400 068 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfg 5376 P (Assessee) : (Revenue) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6209/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बनाम/ Asst. Cit-25(1), G. Shoes Exports Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 068 Vs. (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Radheshyam Jain : Shri Airiju Jaikaran Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.06.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 16.7.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 20.3.2013. 2

For Appellant: Shri Radheshyam Jain
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “जी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5736/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) G. Shoes Exports Asst. CIT-25(1)/CIT City 25 बनाम/ 2nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, 1, Hitex Industrial Estate, S. V. Road, Dahisar (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Mumbai-400 068 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AACFG 5376 P (Assessee) : (Revenue) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6209/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बनाम/ Asst. CIT-25(1), G. Shoes Exports Mumbai-…

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2