Garden Silk Weaving Factory v. CIT

189 ITR 512Supreme Court of India1991#13697 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2025.

Judgments citing Garden Silk Weaving Factory v. CIT

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 2458/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32(1)

…respect of business\nlosses or losses in speculation business and cannot be applicable to carry\nforward and set off of depreciation allowance.\"\n15. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue relied upon the case of Garden\nSilk Weaving Factory v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 512/56 Taxman 4K (SC) in support\nof his submission that unabsorbed depreciation is indeed a part of loss and if\nthe same was not claimed within the due time under section 139, it could not\nbe allowed to be carried forward. In view of what has been discussed above\nthe learned counsel is not right in interpreting the provisions of law and also\nthe…

ITO, WD-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUNGAMATTEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 844/KOL/2014[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2003-04 Ito Ward-4(4), V/S. M/S Rungamattee Tea & Aayakar Bhawan, 8Th Industries Ltd. 90/31, Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Diamond Harbour Road, Square, Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-700 038 [Pan No.Aabcr 1833 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)

…as argued that depreciation is not an expenditure and it is only a notional allowance which is not based on actual expenditure. The AR of the appellant has placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Garden Silk Weaving Factory vs. CIT (1993) 189 ITR 512 which pertains to claim of depreciation u/s 32 of the IT Act, 1961. The said judgment holds depreciation to be of the nature of notional allowance and not an item of actual expenditure. However, section 33AB(6) states that if certain amount is standing to the credit of the assessee in a special deposit account and withdrawals from this account is…

ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. ANIL PRINERS LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5859/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2009-10 Acit, Anil Printers Ltd. Circle-6(1), R. No.506, 2, Kakad Industrial Estate, बनाम/ 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Matunga West, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400016 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aacca6914C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 114JSection 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 32(2)Section 32oSection 42Section 80

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ए, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" । Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member Assessment Year-2009-10 ACIT, Anil Printers Ltd. Circle-6(1), R. No.506, 2, Kakad Industrial Estate, बनाम/ 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Matunga West, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400016 Mumbai-400020 PAN No.AACCA6914C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri M.Murli-DR Shri Mayur Kisnadwala "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / D…

SUNSHIELD CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5045/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5045/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

For Respondent: Shri Nitin Waghmode ,DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 29Section 30Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 71

…l with the CIT(A) . The assessee company relied upon the following case laws in support of its contentions: 1. CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines Private Limited-59 ITR 555(SC), 2. Rajapalayam Mills Limited v. CIT -115 ITR 777(SC), 3. Garden Silk Wvg Factory-189 ITR 512(SC), 4. CIT v. Virmani Inds. P. Ltd. & Ors.-216 ITR 607(SC), ITA 5045/M/10 6 5. Rallies India Limited in ITA No. 4898/M/2006. In the light of the above decisions , the assessee company argued that the assessee company has set off the depreciation allowance for the year under consideration computed as per provisions of Section 32(1) of the Act…

DCIT - 20(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. J.B. ENGG. WORKS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 616/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Dcit-20(1) J.B. Eng. Works Room No.603, 6Th Flr, 797, Jesia Bldg. Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel Jamshed Road, Parsi Vs. Mumbai-400012 Colony, Dadar (E) Mumbai -400014 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafj5106C Revenue By Shri S. S. Kumaran (Dr) Respondent Assessee By Mr. Percy Pardiwalla,Sr. Advocate & Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

Section 143(3)

…set-off against income chargeable under any head. Section 32(2) makes it clear. This also finds judicial support from the decision given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd. 59 ITR 555 and Garden Silks vs. CIT 189 ITR 512. Accordingly, Ld CIT(A) accepted submissions of the assessee and allowed this ground of appeal. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee, and therefore Ld CIT(A) has rightly decided the same in favour of the assessee. Nothing wrong therein could be pointed out by Ld DR, nor found by us, and therefore the same is upheld. Thus,…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOVIND NAGAR SUGAR LIMITED

ITA/164/2008HC Delhi25 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 32(2)Section 80

…ITA No. 164/2008 Page 1 of 13 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 164/2008 Judgment Reserved on: 24.02.2011 % Date of Pronouncement:25.03.2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX …APPELLANT Through : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Anand, Advocate. Versus GOVIND NAGAR SUGAR LIMITED …… RESPONDENT Through : Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh and Mr. Dushyant, Advocate CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-005394-005394 - 1994Supreme Court15 Mar 2000

For Respondent: MAHENDRA MILLS

Section 32Section 34Section 72Section 73

…Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Calcutta vs. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 21 Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd. [(1966) 59 ITR 555 (SC)] and Garden Silk Weaving Factory vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [(1991) 189 ITR 512 (SC)]. Income-tax Officer during the course of assessment can call for the records. Mr. Verma said that during the course of assessment proceedings, Income-tax Officer can call for the account books of the assessee, look into the same and calculate the depreciation allowable under Section 32. To carry forward loss one has to a…