Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT

267 ITR 768High Court2004#3893 most cited

What is Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT authority for?

The asset must be actually used for the purpose of business to be eligible for depreciation, not merely ready for use.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT · section 32 · actual use · ready for use · depreciation · business asset · put to use

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

Winston Fernandes, Mumbai vs. CIT 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5507/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Arora & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5507/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Winston Fernandes Office Of The Commissioner बनाम/ A-1, Fair Ville Estate, 66A, Of Income Tax 21 Vs. 12Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, C-11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Juhu, Mumbai - 400049 B.K.C., Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpf2541A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: S.C.AgrawalFor Respondent: Mrs. Vidisha Kalra
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ght sense which does not require to be interfere with at this appellate stage. With regard to the claim of 6 Assessment Year: 2009-10 depreciation, we may advert to the decision by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar reported at 267 ITR 768 (Bombay) 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby Dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court 5th October, 2016 (SANJAY ARORA) (AMARJIT SINGH) लेखा सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated : 5th October, 2016 MP MP MP MP आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" /…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Galileo India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 88/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate
Section 14A

…d assets were in use and therefore those assets cannot be said to put to use during the concerned year as per the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decided in the favour of the Revenue in the case of Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agarwal vs.CIT & Anr. (Bom.) 267 ITR 768. 3. Whether Ld. CIT(A) was correct on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.13,99,056/- made by AO on account of disallowance on account of advance & securities written off?” 2. It transpires from the above grounds of appeal, that the Revenue has assailed the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) on deletion of fol…

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)

…t sufficient for claiming depreciation. Some such decisions are in the cases of CIT vs Jivaji Rao Sugar Company Ltd 71 ITR 319 (MP), CIT vs JK Transport 231 ITR 798 (MP), CIT vs Maps Tours and Travels 260 ITR 655 (Mad.), Dinesh kumar Gulabchand Agarwal vs CIT 267 ITR 768 (Bom.), CIT vs. Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. 206 ITR 682 (CaL), DCIT Vs Yellamma Dasappa Hospital 290 ITR 353 (Kar.). In particular, the case of Dinesh kumar Gulabchand Agarwal (supra) specifically dealt with issue of depreciation on trucks kept ready for use but not actually used. Thus, a large number of the judicial authorities have taken a considere…

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)

…e, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to claim the depreciation and the AO rightly disallowed the same. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs oriental Coal Co. Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 682 (Cal) " Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal Vs CIT 267 ITR 768 (Bom) " DCIT, Special Range-4 Vs Yellamma Dasappa Hospital 290 ITR 353 " ACIT (OSD) Range 3(3), Mumbai Vs Rishiroop Polymers (P.) Ltd. 102 ITD 128 29. In his rival submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the assets were included in the block of assets whi…

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

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)

…e, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to claim the depreciation and the AO rightly disallowed the same. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs oriental Coal Co. Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 682 (Cal) " Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal Vs CIT 267 ITR 768 (Bom) " DCIT, Special Range-4 Vs Yellamma Dasappa Hospital 290 ITR 353 " ACIT (OSD) Range 3(3), Mumbai Vs Rishiroop Polymers (P.) Ltd. 102 ITD 128 29. In his rival submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the assets were included in the block of assets whi…

Executive Centre India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 6179/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.K.MutsaddiFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar
Section 143(3)Section 35D

…depreciation, as soon as, the machinery is leased and rent is received, whether the lessee has installed the machinery or not is immaterial. In the above decision of the Bombay High Court, its earlier decision in the case of Dinesh Kumar Gulabchand Agarwal - 267 ITR 768 was considered and distinguished. In light of discussion above, the case laws as relied upon by the AO are not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case. 3.3 We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the disallowance of claim of depreciation so made. 4. The next grievance of the assessee relates to disallowance of brokerage. Facts in brief are…

Commisioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd

ITA-161/2006HC Delhi24 Dec 2010

…age that some of the High Courts have taken the view that the expression „used‟ should mean actual user 2010:DHC:6288-DB Gelgy Ltd. [133 ITR 884 (Guj.)], Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [229 ITR 548 (Kar).], Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal Vs. CIT [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…

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

…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 be looked at from two perspectives, firstly, whether passive use is included in the expression “used for the purposes of the business” and, sec…

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd

ITA/422/2007HC Delhi27 Jul 2009
Section 260Section 35(2)

…ee any illegality in the action of the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case. The counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Gulab Chand Aggarwal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 267 ITR 768. However, since there are judgments of two Division 2009:DHC:2928-DB ITA 422/2007 Page 3 Benches of this Court in the case reported as CIT Vs. Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd., 247 ITR 12 and Capital Bus Services vs. CIT, 123 ITR 404, we would be bound by the same. In the case of Refrigeration & Allied Industries Ltd. it ha…

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)

…e 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 be looked at from two perspectives, firstly, whether passive use is included in the expression "used for the purposes of the business" and, secondly, w…