Law Paper Book. (a) CIT v. Chamundeswari Sugar Limited

309 ITR 326High Court#24399 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,254 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing Law Paper Book. (a) CIT v. Chamundeswari Sugar Limited

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri B G Channappa, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2104/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234Section 69B

…roduced invoices for sale of power to M/s EMMVEE ITA No.2104 & 2070/Bang/2017 Page 21 of 23 Photovoltaic Pvt. Ltd., and the usage of solar plant was established. The decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chamundeshwari Sugar Ltd., 309 ITR 326 (Kar) is squarely applicable, wherein it was distinguished the earlier judgment in the case of DCIT Vs. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital 290 ITR 353 and observed that hospital has brought certain machinery and no evidence was placed to prove its use during the asst. year but claimed depreciation. However, in the present case solar plant was put to use a…

M/S Mantri Developers Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 525/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014 – 15 M/S Mantri Developers Private Limited, #41, Mantri House, Dcit Circle – 4 (1) (2), Vittal Malya Road, Vs. Bengaluru Bangalore – 560001 Pan : Aaacg4009N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shree Muzaffar Hussain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit (A) – 4 Bengaluru Dated 30.11.2017. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shree V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shree Muzaffar Hussain, CIT DR

Section 234Section 36

…Used for the purpose of business”, it is enough if the asset is ready for use and actual use is not a precondition. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following judgments, copy available in case Law Paper Book. (a) CIT vs. Chamundeswari Sugar Limited, 309 ITR 326 (kar.), (b) CIT vs. E. I. H. Ltd., 54 DTR 249 (Cal.), (c) CIT vs. Oswal Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd., 341 ITR 467 (Del.), (d) CIT vs. Premier Industries (India) Ltd., 323 ITR 672 (M. P.) Page 4 of 15 4. At this juncture, this was a query of the bench as to when the building was let out. In reply, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee tha…

DCIT- 4 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Batot Hydro Power Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6363/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Batot Hydro Power Ltd., 26, Gobind Mahal, Vs. The Dcit-4(1)(2), 86-B, Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai Marine Drive, Mumbai [Pan : Aaccb4560B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms.Kavita P.Kaushik, DRFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, AR

Section 32(1)

…unctional due to any defect, then, it cannot be said that the asset is not put to use for the purpose of business. In this connection, Ld.AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chamundeshwari Sugar Limited (2009) [309 ITR 326] (Karn). Ld.AR also relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Vindhyachal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., October, 27, 2004. In this case, Ld.AR submitted that bio-gas plant was put to use in May, 1992 and due to leakage during the year in the trial run, regular production was started in the month of October, 1992. The Tribunal reversed the order of CIT(A) and a…