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 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

M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Udupi

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 251/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

…( 154 Taxman 512). The Appellant submits that the said case does not lay down the law relating to the allowability of depreciation under the Income Tax Act,1961 in the case of finance leases. This issue has now achieved finality in the case of ICDS Ltd vs CIT 350 ITR 527 (SC) which has been followed by the jurisdictional High Court in Manipal Finance Corporation limited vs CIT [2014] 49 Taxmann.com 353 ( Karnataka). In the case of Sale and Lease back with related parties the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, City-1 vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd [2018] 256 Taxman 39…

M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Udupi

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 250/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

…( 154 Taxman 512). The Appellant submits that the said case does not lay down the law relating to the allowability of depreciation under the Income Tax Act,1961 in the case of finance leases. This issue has now achieved finality in the case of ICDS Ltd vs CIT 350 ITR 527 (SC) which has been followed by the jurisdictional High Court in Manipal Finance Corporation limited vs CIT [2014] 49 Taxmann.com 353 ( Karnataka). In the case of Sale and Lease back with related parties the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, City-1 vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd [2018] 256 Taxman 39…

M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Udupi

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 249/BANG/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

…( 154 Taxman 512). The Appellant submits that the said case does not lay down the law relating to the allowability of depreciation under the Income Tax Act,1961 in the case of finance leases. This issue has now achieved finality in the case of ICDS Ltd vs CIT 350 ITR 527 (SC) which has been followed by the jurisdictional High Court in Manipal Finance Corporation limited vs CIT [2014] 49 Taxmann.com 353 ( Karnataka). In the case of Sale and Lease back with related parties the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, City-1 vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd [2018] 256 Taxman 39…

M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Udupi

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 248/BANG/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

…( 154 Taxman 512). The Appellant submits that the said case does not lay down the law relating to the allowability of depreciation under the Income Tax Act,1961 in the case of finance leases. This issue has now achieved finality in the case of ICDS Ltd vs CIT 350 ITR 527 (SC) which has been followed by the jurisdictional High Court in Manipal Finance Corporation limited vs CIT [2014] 49 Taxmann.com 353 ( Karnataka). In the case of Sale and Lease back with related parties the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, City-1 vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd [2018] 256 Taxman 39…

M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Udupi

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 247/BANG/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

…( 154 Taxman 512). The Appellant submits that the said case does not lay down the law relating to the allowability of depreciation under the Income Tax Act,1961 in the case of finance leases. This issue has now achieved finality in the case of ICDS Ltd vs CIT 350 ITR 527 (SC) which has been followed by the jurisdictional High Court in Manipal Finance Corporation limited vs CIT [2014] 49 Taxmann.com 353 ( Karnataka). In the case of Sale and Lease back with related parties the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, City-1 vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd [2018] 256 Taxman 39…

M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Udupi

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 245/BANG/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

…( 154 Taxman 512). The Appellant submits that the said case does not lay down the law relating to the allowability of depreciation under the Income Tax Act,1961 in the case of finance leases. This issue has now achieved finality in the case of ICDS Ltd vs CIT 350 ITR 527 (SC) which has been followed by the jurisdictional High Court in Manipal Finance Corporation limited vs CIT [2014] 49 Taxmann.com 353 ( Karnataka). In the case of Sale and Lease back with related parties the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, City-1 vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd [2018] 256 Taxman 39…

M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Udupi

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 243/BANG/2018[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

…( 154 Taxman 512). The Appellant submits that the said case does not lay down the law relating to the allowability of depreciation under the Income Tax Act,1961 in the case of finance leases. This issue has now achieved finality in the case of ICDS Ltd vs CIT 350 ITR 527 (SC) which has been followed by the jurisdictional High Court in Manipal Finance Corporation limited vs CIT [2014] 49 Taxmann.com 353 ( Karnataka). In the case of Sale and Lease back with related parties the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, City-1 vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd [2018] 256 Taxman 39…

Rmc Readmix(India) P. Ltd ( Now Amalgamated With Rism Cement Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07,

ITA 3371/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Rmc Readymix (India) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, P. Ltd., Central Circle -34, Windsor, 7Th Floor, C.S.T Road, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Near Vidyanagri, Kalina, Mumbai - 400020 Santacruz (E), Mumbai - 400098 Pan : Aaacr4938D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra/
Section 115JSection 143Section 2(24)(x)Section 40

…entitled to deduction of lease rental as per the CBDT Circular No. 2/2001 dated 09.02.2001. The Ld. counsel further pointed out that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT 350 ITR 527 (SC) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Apollo Finvest Ltd. 382 ITR 33 (Bombay). The Ld. counsel further pointed out that the Ld. CIT (A) has not given any cogent and convincing reason for rejecting the concurrent findings of his predecessor in the assessee’s own appeals for the assessment years 2003- Assess…

M/S Vectra Investments Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 1429/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri. Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 37(1)

…ITA Nos.1429-1430(B)/2018 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : “B”, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT.BEENA PILLAI, JUDICAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1429 to 1431(Bang)/2018 (Assessment years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/s Vectra Investments Pvt.Ltd., No.15, 5th Floor, Vectra House, 1st Main, 6th Cross, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru-560 009 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore Respondent Appellant by : Shri. Shailesh Kumar, CA Revenue by : Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 10-07-2019 Date of pronouncement : 31-07-2019 O…

Niit Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

ITA 6779/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 32Section 37(1)

…ssessee in the Income Tax return should be allowed as business expenditure. In support of its contention assessee relied on Circular no. 2 of 2001 dated 09.02.2001 of CBDT and also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT 350 ITR 527. The Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 1,99,66,749/- on account of finance lease expenses. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the transaction enter into by the assessee with M/s. SREI Equipment Finance Ltd…

Niit Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

ITA 6778/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 32Section 37(1)

…ssessee in the Income Tax return should be allowed as business expenditure. In support of its contention assessee relied on Circular no. 2 of 2001 dated 09.02.2001 of CBDT and also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT 350 ITR 527. The Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 1,99,66,749/- on account of finance lease expenses. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the transaction enter into by the assessee with M/s. SREI Equipment Finance Ltd…

Rural Communication and Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1338/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra, Ac C O U N Ta N T Member

…C A m } IN TH E INCOME TA X APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH 'F' : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AC C O U N TA N T MEMBER ITA No.l338/Del/2017 Assessment Y e a r: 2013-14 M/s Rural Communication Vs. Deputy Commissioner of and Marketing Pvt.Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-21(2), E-291, Greater Kailash-ll, New Delhi. New Delhi - 110 048. PAN : AAACR0134P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Sushil Sharma, FCA. Respondent by Shri Surender Pal, Senior DR. Date of hearing 04.07.2019 Date of pronouncement 12.07.2019 ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA. AM : This appeal…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.929 to 932/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2008-09 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Sector 26, Pradhikaran, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411044 …. PAN: AAALP0279Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.78 & 79/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessme…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 944/PUN/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.929 to 932/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2008-09 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Sector 26, Pradhikaran, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411044 …. PAN: AAALP0279Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.78 & 79/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessme…

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 932/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.929 to 932/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2008-09 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Sector 26, Pradhikaran, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411044 …. PAN: AAALP0279Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.78 & 79/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessme…

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 931/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.929 to 932/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2008-09 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Sector 26, Pradhikaran, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411044 …. PAN: AAALP0279Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.78 & 79/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessme…

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 930/PUN/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.929 to 932/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2008-09 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Sector 26, Pradhikaran, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411044 …. PAN: AAALP0279Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.78 & 79/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessme…

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 929/PUN/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.929 to 932/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2008-09 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Sector 26, Pradhikaran, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411044 …. PAN: AAALP0279Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.78 & 79/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessme…

Industrial Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT- 19, Mumba

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 3626/MUM/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhindustrial Development Bank Of Joint Commissioner Of Income India, Taxation Cell, Icbi Tower, –Tax, Range -19, 4Th Floor, Wtc Complex, Cuff 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Prade, Mumbai-400005 Mumbai-400020 Vs Pan: Aaci 1105 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Satish Mody Ar Respondent By : Sh. Awungshi Ginson ( Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Mody ARFor Respondent: Sh. Awungshi Ginson ( Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 254(1)Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80MSection 9

…4-95 to 1996-97 by way of a combined order dated 29.10.2014 (supra). We have perused the said decision and find that the Tribunal referred to various decisions, inter-alia, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd. Vs CIT [2013] 350 ITR 527 (SC), wherein Hon’ble Court held that even in cases of ‘financial leases’, the depreciation allowance contemplated under Section 32(1) of the Act is allowable to the lessor. It has not been shown by the Ld. CIT-DR that any of such 8 IDBI (ITA No. 3626/M/2001) AY 1997-98 precedents in assessee’s own case has been altered by any higher authorit…

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 allowed as per the discussion made

ITA 2600/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2600/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) M/S Philips India Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ketan V. Ved& Ms. PurbaFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…t 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. M/s Philips India Ltd. (formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) SA No. 13/Kol/2019 (arising out of I.T.A. No. 2600/Kol/2018) Assessment Year:2014-15 15.1…