Kol. vs. M/s Calcutta Medical Imaging Institute Ltd. Page 5 2) Orient Cosmetics Ltd. v. DCIT

201 ITR 124High Court1993#15240 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Judgments citing Kol. vs. M/s Calcutta Medical Imaging Institute Ltd. Page 5 2) Orient Cosmetics Ltd. v. DCIT

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4815/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32A

…urchase of new assets. Once installation is within the specified period, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 32AC of the Act. • The assessee has referred to the case of Janta Sugar Industries v. CIT (295 ITR 448), CIT v. Surama Tubes P. Ltd. (201 ITR 124). • In view of the above, it is submitted that even for the purpose of section 32AC the significant date is the date of installation. If installation falls after 31 March 2013 but before 31st March 2015, the assessee would be entitled to get deduction, no matter the date of purchase or acquisition. 6 Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited…

Kokuyo Camlin Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5443/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5443/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AathavaleFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5443/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Kokuyo Camlin Ltd. ACIT – 10(1)(2), 48/2, Hilton House, Aayakar Bhava, Mumbai बिधम/ Central Road, MIDC, Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAACC1647E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Aathavale, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Gurbinder Singh, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 11.02.2021 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 22.04.2021 Date of Pronounc…

Agile Electric Sub Assembly (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA 2497/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2497/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 79

…However, sec. 79 would not apply to a claim for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation (included in the sum disallowed in assessment), as held in CIT vs. Concord Industries Ltd. [1979] 119 ITR 458 (Mad) and CIT vs. Surama Tubes (P.) Ltd. [1993] 201 ITR 124 (Cal). Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal. 4. Before us, the assessee argued its’ case with reference to section 72A. Being a specific, non obstante provision governing carry forward and set off of unabsorbed loss in case of amalgamation, it would prevail. The same provides for the deeming of the accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation of…

I.T.O WD - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Calcutta Medical Imaging Institute Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2259/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2005-06

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

…) Sponge Iron India Ltd. v. DCIT (2010) 40 SOT 139 (Hyd) ITA No.2259/Kol/2013 A.Y.2005-06 ITO Wd-8(2) Kol. vs. M/s Calcutta Medical Imaging Institute Ltd. Page 5 2) Orient Cosmetics Ltd. v. DCIT (2000) 74 ITD 135 (Mad) 3) CIT vs. Surama Tubes (P) Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 124 (Cal) On the other hand, Ld. AR before us filed paper book comprising pages from 1 to 21 and submitted the trial process of the machines started with effect from 15.03.2004. The assessee in support of its claim has submitted the test report for using machine which is placed on page 7 of the paper book. Ld. AR further submitted the machine was re…

Jt. CIT. Cir.RG.8(2)(OSD), Mumbai vs. M/S. Lotus Energy (India) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7530/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7530/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Jt. Cit Cir. 8(2), M/S Lotus Energy (India) बनाम/ R. No. 216-A, Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhavan, 214, Laxmi Plaza, M.K. Road, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai -. Andheri (W), Mumbai 53. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabcl 0119K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…opinion,assessee was entitled to claim AD @of 10%.Reversing the order of the FAA,we decide the effective ground of appeal in favour of the assessee.” Our view is further fortified by judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Surama Tubes(P.)Ltd. 201 ITR 124(Cal. HC.), whereby Hon’ble Calcutta High Court while dealing with the allowability of benefits of investment allowance and additional depreciation held as under : “If the installation of a plant is spread over more than a year, the relevant year for the grant of allowance would be the year in which the installation is completed. As in the case o…

DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai vs. Ramani Hotels Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7329/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.K.Billaiya & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7329/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) The Asstt. Commissioner Of Ramani Hotels Limited बनाम/ Income Tax 8(3), 462, A.B.Nair Road, Juhu, Vs. Room No.217, Mumbai - 400049 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Marg, Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr5513J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subhash S. ShettyFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi Ramchandran

Section 143(3)Section 79

…s, the same is clearly allowable. Further the case laws cited and relied upon by the appellant also support the above proposition:- . => (1995) 128 Taxation 92 (Coch)(AT) M/s. Pioneer Enterprises => (1993) 114 Taxation 65 (Guj.) Broach Textile Mills => (1993) 201 ITR 124 (Cal) Surma Tubes Pvt.Ltd. => (1986) 157 ITR 658 (Jer) Kalpaka Enterprises. => (1983) 143 ITR 863 (Guj) Shri.Subhlami Mills Ltd. => (1979) 119 ITR 458 (Mad) Concord Industrial Ltd. Accordingly, following the above reasoning and the decisions cited, the AO is directed to allow the set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation loss of Rs.2,55,…