How many judgments cite ICDS Ltd. v. CIT?

280 judgments on BharatTax cite ICDS Ltd. v. CIT (350 ITR 527), spanning 2013 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ICDS Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 115JB, Section 14A, Section 158A(1), Section 24.

ICDS Ltd. v. CIT

350 ITR 527Supreme Court of India2013#280 most cited

What is ICDS Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An assessee engaged in the business of hire purchase or leasing, being the lessor, is entitled to claim depreciation on assets leased out, even if the assets are registered in the name of the lessee and used by the lessee.

280

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

ICDS Ltd v CIT · 350 ITR 527 · depreciation on leased assets · lessor claim depreciation · finance lease · hire purchase · business income deduction · section 37(1) · section 32 · owner for depreciation

Also reported as

29 Taxmann.com 129212 Taxmann 550

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 115JB Section 14A Section 158A(1)Section 24 Section 35DDA Section 36(1)(vii)

Issues it is cited on

depreciation on leased assets recognised provident fund section 2(26)section 36(2)(i)section 129(1)section 35dda section 50b section 158a section 43b(f)approved gratuity fund section 40a(9)section 4a

Judgments citing ICDS Ltd. v. CIT

Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Range-10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years are partly

ITA 3339/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood, Assessment Years: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of Infrastructure Leasing & Income Tax-Range 10(1) Financial Services Limited बनाम/ Mumbai The Il&Fs Financial Center Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaaci-0989-F Assessment Years: 2005-06 Infrastructure Leasing & Addl. Commissioner Of Financial Services Limited Income Tax-Range 10(1) बनाम/ The Il&Fs Financial Center Mumbai Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaaci-0989-F Assessment Years: 2006-07 Addl. Commissioner Of Infrastructure Leasing & Income Tax-Range 10(1) Financial Services Limited बनाम/ Mumbai The Il&Fs Financial Center Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaaci-0989-F

Section 10(230)Section 14A

…of the ITAT for AY 2004-05, where, the Tribunal, by following its earlier order for AYs 1996-97 to 2003-04, allowed the claim of the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that now this issue has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. 350 ITR 527(SC), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that depreciation on leased assets is allowable irrespective of fact that such leased transactions are in the nature of finance lease or operating lease. 67. Having heard both sides and considered the material available on record, we find that this issue has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench for…

Mercury Car Rentals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1442/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1442/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mercury Car Rentals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle – 4(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaccm 0488 P] Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)

…d ,AY- 2012-13 3. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties. The Ld. AR of the appellant submitted that the claim for deduction of lease rentals was in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd Vs CIT (350 ITR 527) and therefore urged that the impugned disallowance be deleted. Per contra the Ld. DR supported the order of the lower authorities and argued that the issue at hand was claim of double deduction rather than allowability of the lease rentals. He submitted that the appellant was unable to produce any evidence to show that the separate claim made in…

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nascent Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2828/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2828/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Ito M/S. Nascent Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Ward-3(1)(1), Vs. A-805, Sapath-Iv, Opp. Ahmedabad Karnavati Club, Ahmedabad- 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aac Cn3 670 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Santosh Karnani, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Mehul K. Patel, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 13/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed - Am:

For Appellant: Santosh Karnani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mehul K. Patel, AR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asea Brown Boveri Limited v/s CIT reported in 154 taxman 512 which was pronounced dated 27th October 2004. However, subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICD v/s CIT reported in 350 ITR 527 has decided the issue against the assessee involving similar facts & circumstances vide order dated 14-01-2013. Accordingly, the assessee was not entitled to the depreciation in respect of lease datacentre. However, it is pertinent to note that the assessee claimed depreciation on such datacentre before the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the…

Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier known as Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [PAN : AABCP 9487 A] Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - IV, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances by: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, appeared on behalf of t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kota vs. M/S Shree Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Kota

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

ITA 949/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ran Singh (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE-B, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 949/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2010-11 cuke Asstt. Commissioner of M/s Shree Agencies Pvt. Vs. Income-tax Ltd., Circle-1, B-45, I.P.I.A. Jhalawar Kota Road, Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCS3329A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Ran Singh (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee b…

Amit Capital & Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3443/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2006-07 Amit Capital & Securities Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Range-2(1)(1), बनाम/ 47A, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.308, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Hanuman Building, Perin M. K. Road, Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaca4219Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Govind Jhaveri Shri Satishchandra Rajore-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 04/10/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2018

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ngs, the Tribunal by order dated 30th April, 2014 has held the respondent assessee entitled to claim depreciation on the assets used on sale and lease back basis. This by following the decision of the Supreme Court in ICDS Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 350 ITR 527. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30thApril, 2014 of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the Revenue had filed three appeals being Income Tax Appeal Nos.1625 of 2014, 1670 of 2014 and 1694 of 2014 in this Court. On 8th March, 2017 all the three appeals were admitted on identical substantial question of law, which reads as under :- “1. Whet…

Income Tax Officer - 1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Nath Capital Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the CO of assessee is also dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2826/MUM/2017[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 1997-98

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Shri DG Pansari, DRFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Agarwal, AR

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 254

…12 and 13 as under: - CO. No. 247/Mum/2018 12. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) after examining the details furnished by the assessee and analyzing the decision of the Special Bench as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd. v. CIT [350 ITR 527] and M/s. Avasalara Technologies Ltd v. JCIT, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 2996 of 2004 and held as under: - “3.4. I have gone through the assessment order dated 21,10.2010 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the I.T. Act wherein the AO has not allowed depreciation claimed by the appellant of Rs, 62,47,500/- which is sustained as in the original order…

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2225/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2225/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.09..2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2018

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 2225/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s EIH Limited -vs- DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [PAN: AAACE 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Ravi Sharma, AR For the Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 03.09..2018 Date of Pronouncement : 14.09.2018 ORDER M. Balaganesh, AM: 1. This appeal is directed against the final assessment order passed under Section (in short u/s) 144C(13)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) date…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gillette Diversified Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 5736/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Dinodia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…ITA No. 5736, 5675 to 5677/D/2015 Assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5736/Del /2015 Asstt. Year: 2010-11 ACIT, vs Gillette Diversified Pvt. Ltd., Circle 10(1), P&G Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, New Delhi Chankala, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400009 (PAN: AAACG2469C) (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 5675/DEL/2015 to 5677/DEL/2015 Asstt. Year: 2008-09 to 2010-11 Gillette Diversified Pvt. Ltd., vs ACIT, P&G Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Circle 12(1),…

M/S. Gillette Diversified Operations Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 5677/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Dinodia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)

M/S. Gillette Diversified Operations Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 5676/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Dinodia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)

M/S. Gillette Diversified Operations Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 5675/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Dinodia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)

Tata Motors Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, for

ITA 1490/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 54E

…lable on record. The issue of depreciation on sale and lease back of assets is no longer res integra. The coordinate bench of ITAT in assessee’s own case from AY 1997-98 onwards, by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICDS vs CIT 350 ITR 527 (SC) and also 5 Tata Motors the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Apollo Finvest India Ltd in ITA 2298 of 2013 held that the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on assets sold and leased back. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:- 5. We have considered the rival .submission of the parties and…

L & T Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3758/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Dr. A.L. Sainil&T Finance Ltd. Taxation Department L&T House, N.M. Marg ……………. Appellant Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aaacl8668G V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(2), Mumbai L&T Finance Ltd. Taxation Department L&T House, N.M. Marg ……………. Appellant Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aaacl8668G V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala a/wFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh a/w

…nged the disallowance before the first appellate authority, he also confirmed it. 12. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, the dispute now stands settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICDS Ltd. v/s CIT, 350 ITR 527 (SC). He submitted, following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the preceding assessment years up to assessment year 2007–08. In this context, he drew our attention to the relevant observations of the Tribunal in the orders passed in assessment year 2005–06 to 2007…

ACIT, Circle-1, Burdwan vs. Shri Pintu Bhattacharjee, Burdwan

Appeal is dismissed accordingly

ITA 1/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Acit, Circle-1, V/S. Shri Pintu Bhattacharjee Aayakar Bhavan, Court Memari Old Lic Math, G.T. Compound,Burdwan- Road, Memari, 713101 Burdwan-713146 [Pan No.Adepb 8283 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent S.M.S. Tauheed, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Asamsol’S Order Dated 30.10.2014 In Case No.178/C.I.T.(A)/Asl/Acit/Cir-1/Bwn/13-14, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3)/144A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Revenue’S Identical Former Grievance Pleads That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts On The Deleting Disallowance / Additions Of ₹39,94,137/- Pertaining To Higher Depreciation Rate Claimed On Transmit Complete Mixer & Loaders & Also Granting Relief Of ₹4,73,249/- Regarding Lower Loader Machine; Respectively. We Notice That Cit(A) Discuss In On This Issue Reads As Under:- “6. Ground 2 Is Against Not Granting Depreciation At Higher Rates For Concrete Mixers & Payloaders, Vibrator Soil Compactor Etc. Is Settled In The Cases Reported In Vikram Ispat Vs. State Of Maharastra Air 2003 Bombay 498 P

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…she does not want to continue with the agreement. 4. In case of hire purchase the person who has taken the good on hire cannot transfer the goods to a third party as he or she doe s not have the ownership of the goods. In I.C.D.S. Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr. (20133) 350 ITR 527 (SC) it is held that depreciation in case of lease is available to lessor. In the instant case assessee has claimed depreciation on the basis of ownership. Therefore claiming depreciation and benefit of circular 647 does not go simultaneously. Hence the Hire Purchase agreement is to be examined and decided whether the asset has been obtained unde…

ACIT - 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Progressive Share Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5317/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-4(2)(1), M/S Progressive Share Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Brokers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B, 1St Floor, Fort Chambers, Vs. M. K. Road, Homi Modi Cross Street, Mumbai-400020 Off. Hamam Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacp6712H

Section 14ASection 43(5)Section 73

…to the assessment year 2007- 08 vide order dated June 28, 2013 has restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer directing it to be decided in the light of the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of I. C. D. S. Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 350 ITR 527 (SC). Following the same line, the Tribunal in the assessee's appeal relating to the assessment year 2008- 09 vide order dated February 28, 2014 has again restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to decide the same as per the directions given by the Tribunal in order dated June 28, 2014 for the assessment year 2007-…

Sthapati Architecture and Interiors Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2361/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2361/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Sthapati Architecture & Dcit, बनाम/ Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 8, Vs. 502, New York Plaza, Ahmedabad. Opp. Judges Bunglow, Satellite, Ahmedabad – 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahcs 8758 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Sakar Sharma, C.A. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Sankar, Sr. D.R.

For Respondent: Shri T. Sankar, Sr. D.R

Section 194JSection 201Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 40Section 43B

…liance of the provisions of Section 32 of the Act, if the assets are used by any other persons for the purpose of the business. In this regard, we find support and guidance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 350 ITR 527, wherein it was held as under: “Therefore, in the facts of the present case, we hold that the lessor i.e. the assessee is the owner of the vehicles. As the owner, it used the assets in the course of its business, satisfying both requirements of Section 32 of the Act and hence, is entitled to claim depreciation in respect of additions made to the…

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

…Bridge Company and held that firstly, the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind at all and secondly, the toll roads are not owned by the Assessee and he cannot claim any depreciation thereon.” The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs CIT (2013) 350 ITR 527 (Supreme Court) while dealing with interpretation of section 32 of the Act held as under:- “'10. Depreciation is the monetary equivalent of the wear and tear suffered by a capital asset that is set aside to facilitate its replacement when the asset becomes dys- functional. In P.K. Badiani v. Commissioner of Income tax, Bombay, this Court has obs…

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

Section 143Section 253Section 32

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1)Kol., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

Section 14Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B

…se & in law, the Ld. Panel as well as the Ld. AO while denying the deduction of principal part of lease rental grossly erred in not applying the ratio decidendi laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. I.C.D.S. Ltd. - vs.- CIT (2013) 350 ITR 527 (SC) which was squarely applicable in the case of the appellant. 4.4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law and without prejudice to grounds take herein above, the Ld. Panel as well as the Ld. AO while making the disallowance of principal repayment of lease rental erred in not allowing depreciation u/s 32 of the Act on lease a…