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 366,470 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 115JBSection 14ASection 158A(1)Section 24Section 35DDASection 36(1)(vii)

Issues it is cited on

depreciation on leased assetsrecognised provident fundsection 2(26)section 36(2)(i)section 129(1)section 35ddasection 50bsection 158asection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)section 4a

Judgments citing ICDS Ltd. v. CIT

Tata Motors Ltd (Successor to Tata Finance Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1489/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 1999-2000 Tata Motors Ltd. Acit-2(3) (Successor To Tata Finance Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Ltd.), Bombay House, 24, M.K. Road, Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaact2727Q

Section 271(1)(c)

…the preceding assessment years in assessee’s own case, the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the 4 Tata Motors Ltd. (Successor to Tata Finance Ltd.) assessee by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ICDS Ltd. v/s CIT, 350 ITR 527 (SC). In this context, he referred to the decision of the Tribunal for assessment years 1994– 95 to 1998–99. He submitted, there being no difference in facts on the basis of which the Tribunal had decided the issue in assessee’s own case earlier, the decisions have to be followed in the impugned assessment year as well. Further, he also relied up…

ITO 1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Nath Capital Financial Services, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4430/MUM/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen
Section 251

…ter to the file of the Assessing Officer. 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…

M/S. Philips India Limited (Formerly Philips Electronics India Litd.), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2489/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2489/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D(1)

…paid in respect of cars treating the same as capital expenditure. 8.2. The Learned AO and DRP erred in law and on facts in disallowing the lease rent paid without taking cognizance of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 350 ITR 527 (SC). 8.3. Strictly without prejudice to the above, the Learned AO and DRP erred in law and on facts in not allowing depreciation on total payment towards lease transactions including interest. 52 M/s Philips India Ltd. (formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd) A.Yr.2013-14 15.1. The ld AR argued that this issue is covered by the decision of th…

DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. You Broadband & Cable India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal raised by Revenue is

ITA 4173/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhacit-13(3)(2) M/S You Broadband & Cable India R. No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., Plot No. 54, Marol Co-Operative Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Industrial Estate, Makwana Road, Mumbai-20. Andheri(E), Mumbai-400103 Pan:Aabcb6062F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri S. Padmaja Cit-Dr With : Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr Dr) Assessee By : Sh. Nishant Thakkar Advocate Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act (‘The Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-21

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…hat the assessee is not the owner of the leased asset. It was submitted that the order of ld CIT(A) is liable to be sustained. In support of his submission, the Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICDS Ltd. Vs. CIT [2013] 350 ITR 527 and decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Banswara Syntex Ltd. [2013] taxmann.com 176 (Raj.). 5. In the rejoinder submission, the Ld. DR for the Revenue submits that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is based on order of earlier years, which has already set- aside to the file of Assessing Officer and keeping in view the identical nature of di…

M/S Phillips India Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 612/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 612/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D(1)

…same as capital expenditure. 46 Philips India Ltd.. A.Yr.2012-13 7.2. The Learned AO and DRP erred in law and on facts in disallowing the lease rent paid without taking cognizance of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 350 ITR 527 (SC). 7.3. Strictly without prejudice to the above, the Learned AO and DRP erred in law and on facts in not allowing depreciation on total payment towards lease transactions including interest. 14.1. The ld AR argued that this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd vs CIT reported in (2013) 350 ITR…

M/S Philips Electronics India Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I, .T Cir - 11, Kolkata.

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1894/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…d in law and on facts in not allowing depreciation on total payment towards lease transactions including interest. 6.1. The ld AR argued that this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd vs CIT reported in (2013) 350 ITR 527 (SC) wherein it was held 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 trucks, which were leased out.” 42 A.Yr.2007-08 & 2008-…

Philips Electronis India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 857/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…d in law and on facts in not allowing depreciation on total payment towards lease transactions including interest. 6.1. The ld AR argued that this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd vs CIT reported in (2013) 350 ITR 527 (SC) wherein it was held 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 trucks, which were leased out.” 42 A.Yr.2007-08 & 2008-…

Lakshmi Builder & Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT 31(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2997/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy, CIT

…h Vyas, appearing for the assessee submitted that in the preceding assessment years in assessee’s own case, the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ICDS Ltd. v/s CIT, 350 ITR 527 (SC). In this context, he referred to the decision of the Tribunal for assessment years 1994– 95 to 1998–99. He submitted, there being no difference in facts on the basis of which the Tribunal had decided the issue in assessee’s own case earlier, the decisions have to be followed in the impugned assessment year as well. Further, he also relied up…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Larsen & Toubro Finance Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4459/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…were the real owner of the vehicles and therefore, the depreciation could not be allowed to the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 8.2 The Ld. AR, placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court rendered in I.C.D.S. Ltd. Vs. CIT [350 ITR 527], drew attention to the fact that the matter was decided by the Tribunal against the assessee from AYs. 1995- 96 to 1999-2000 vide ITA Nos. 2574-76/Mum/2010 & 4345-46/Mum/2010 but the same were later on recalled in view of cited decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The copies of the orders have be…

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

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3982/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…were the real owner of the vehicles and therefore, the depreciation could not be allowed to the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 8.2 The Ld. AR, placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court rendered in I.C.D.S. Ltd. Vs. CIT [350 ITR 527], drew attention to the fact that the matter was decided by the Tribunal against the assessee from AYs. 1995- 96 to 1999-2000 vide ITA Nos. 2574-76/Mum/2010 & 4345-46/Mum/2010 but the same were later on recalled in view of cited decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The copies of the orders have be…

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

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3981/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…were the real owner of the vehicles and therefore, the depreciation could not be allowed to the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 8.2 The Ld. AR, placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court rendered in I.C.D.S. Ltd. Vs. CIT [350 ITR 527], drew attention to the fact that the matter was decided by the Tribunal against the assessee from AYs. 1995- 96 to 1999-2000 vide ITA Nos. 2574-76/Mum/2010 & 4345-46/Mum/2010 but the same were later on recalled in view of cited decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The copies of the orders have be…

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

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3980/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…were the real owner of the vehicles and therefore, the depreciation could not be allowed to the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 8.2 The Ld. AR, placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court rendered in I.C.D.S. Ltd. Vs. CIT [350 ITR 527], drew attention to the fact that the matter was decided by the Tribunal against the assessee from AYs. 1995- 96 to 1999-2000 vide ITA Nos. 2574-76/Mum/2010 & 4345-46/Mum/2010 but the same were later on recalled in view of cited decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The copies of the orders have be…

ACIT (OSD) - 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Finance Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2997/MUM/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy, CIT

…h Vyas, appearing for the assessee submitted that in the preceding assessment years in assessee’s own case, the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ICDS Ltd. v/s CIT, 350 ITR 527 (SC). In this context, he referred to the decision of the Tribunal for assessment years 1994– 95 to 1998–99. He submitted, there being no difference in facts on the basis of which the Tribunal had decided the issue in assessee’s own case earlier, the decisions have to be followed in the impugned assessment year as well. Further, he also relied up…

DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eih Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 153/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…ayment for purchase of leased assets and thus should be treated as capital expenditure. The ld DRP after considering the facts in detail and applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd vs CIT reported 35 A.Yrs.2011-12 in 350 ITR 527 (SC) allowed the issue in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground:- 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred in deleting the addition regarding Principal Repayment of Finance Fee. 11.1. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the issue under d…

Eih Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 110/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…ayment for purchase of leased assets and thus should be treated as capital expenditure. The ld DRP after considering the facts in detail and applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd vs CIT reported 35 A.Yrs.2011-12 in 350 ITR 527 (SC) allowed the issue in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground:- 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred in deleting the addition regarding Principal Repayment of Finance Fee. 11.1. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the issue under d…

Samarth Lifters P.Ltd, Thane vs. Addl CIT RG 3, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

ITA 1781/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.1781/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Samarth Lifters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-3, Thane 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Opp. Anand Nagar, Octroi Naka, Road No.16Z, Nayan Building, Wagale Ind. Estate, Next To Maa Niketan Thane (W) School, Pin - 400604 Easter Express Highway Kopri, Thane (W), Pin – 400 603 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs6646K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओय से /Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratna Parakhi याजस्व की ओय से /Revenue By : Shri V. Justin सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2017 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- 2 Mumbai, Dated 16.01.2015, For The Assessment Year 2011-12, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T. Act. 2. The Only Grievance Of Assessee Relates To Disallowance Of Depreciation On Crawler Cranes & Dozers @ 30%. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused.

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratna ParakhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)Section 2(28)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठठ ‘ई’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.1781/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Samarth Lifters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, Range-3, Thane 6th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Opp. Anand Nagar, Octroi Naka, Road No.16Z, Nayan Building, Wagale Ind. Estate, Next to Maa Niketan Thane (W) School, Pin - 400604 Easter Express Highway Kopri, Thane (W), Pin – 400 603 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AACCS6646K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओय…

Stanrose Mafatlal Investments and Finanace Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 3(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 5440/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S. Naik-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ आई मुंबई आई आई” खंडपीठ आई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“I”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं शि"जीत डे, "याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Saktijit Dey,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ ITA No. 5440/Mum/2009: िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year:2004-05 वष" Stanrose Mafatlal Investments and Income tax Officer Finance Limited Range-3(3)(3), Aayakar Bhavan, 57-A, Vijayalaxmi Mafatlal Centre M.K. Road,Mumbai-…

DDIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Tidewater Marine Internatioanl Inc., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6166/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. M/S. Ddit, International Taxation, Tidewater Marine International Inc., 17Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 13A-Subhash Road, Dehradun Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Tolstoys Marg, New Delhi Pan : Aaact7573Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Gaurav Dudeja, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Amit Arora, Ca Date Of Hearing 31.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 192Section 2Section 234BSection 44BSection 44DSection 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. M/s. DDIT, International Taxation, Tidewater Marine International Inc., 17th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 13A-Subhash Road, Dehradun Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Tolstoys Marg, New Delhi PAN : AAACT7573Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Gaurav Dudeja, Sr.DR Respondent by Sh. Amit Arora, CA Date of hearing 31.10.2017 Date of pronouncement 31.10.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 26/08/2014…

Sbi Capitalmarkets Ltd vs. DCIT Sp. RG 27

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 294/MUM/1999[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 1994-95
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi-ARFor Respondent: Shri BCS Naik-CIT-DR & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 254(1)

…he assets nor had to gone to the lessees premises for verification of existence of the asset,that the High Court proceedings,including the report of the CR,were primary evidence to show existence of the assets. The AR relied upon the decision of I.C.D.S. Ltd.(350 ITR 527) of the Hon’ble Apex Court and contended that the Hon’ble Court had held that the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation since it was the owner of the assets so leased. 2.4.1.The Departmental Representative(DR)argued that the assessee had issued bearer cheques to the employees of the lessees,that one of the insurance policy document stated t…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bengal Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

ITA 1218/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.1218/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Cir – 11(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Bengal Beverages Pvt. Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 6, Alipore Park Road, Alipore, Kolkata – 700 027 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb5984E (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue/Department By : Shri R. P. Nag, Acit (Dr) सुनवाईक"तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Kolkata, In Appeal No. 502/Cit(A)-4/Circle-11/Kol/14- 15, Dated 06.07.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 08.03.2013. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals: “That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Disallowance Of Additional Depreciation Of Rs.90,56,200/- U/S 32(1) (Iia) Of The I.T.Act,1961, Relating To Visicooler Machine.”

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Nag, ACIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.1218/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 DCIT, Cir – 11(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s. Bengal Beverages Pvt. Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 6, Alipore Park Road, Alipore, Kolkata – 700 027 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.PAN/GIR No. : AABCB5984E (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee by : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue/Department by : Shri R. P. Nag, ACIT (DR) सुनवाईक"तारीख /Date of Hearing : 10/08/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date of Pronouncement: 06/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R…