Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India

Prasidh Fincap Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

…8. The key word in section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 Act is "actually". We quote hereinbelow an important observation, made by this Court on the meaning of the words "actually allowed" in section 43(6)(b) in the case of Madeva Upendra Sinai v Union of India (1975) 98 ITR 209 (SC), which reads as under: "The pivot of the definition of 'written-down value' is the 'actual cost of the assets Where the asset was acquired and also used for the business in the previous year, such value would be its full actual cost and depreciation for that year would be allowed at the prescribed rate on such cost. In subsequent year. deprec…

Prasidh Fincap Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

…8. The key word in section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 Act is "actually". We quote hereinbelow an important observation, made by this Court on the meaning of the words "actually allowed" in section 43(6)(b) in the case of Madeva Upendra Sinai v Union of India (1975) 98 ITR 209 (SC), which reads as under: "The pivot of the definition of 'written-down value' is the 'actual cost of the assets Where the asset was acquired and also used for the business in the previous year, such value would be its full actual cost and depreciation for that year would be allowed at the prescribed rate on such cost. In subsequent year. deprec…

Prasidh Fincap Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

…8. The key word in section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 Act is "actually". We quote hereinbelow an important observation, made by this Court on the meaning of the words "actually allowed" in section 43(6)(b) in the case of Madeva Upendra Sinai v Union of India (1975) 98 ITR 209 (SC), which reads as under: "The pivot of the definition of 'written-down value' is the 'actual cost of the assets Where the asset was acquired and also used for the business in the previous year, such value would be its full actual cost and depreciation for that year would be allowed at the prescribed rate on such cost. In subsequent year. deprec…

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4663/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4664/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Acit, Vs M/S Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. Circle-11(2), Mehtab House, A-36, Mohan Co-Op New Delhi Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7474G Co No. 190/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Co No. 191/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 M/S Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Mehtab House, A-36, Mohan Co-Op Circle-11(2), Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7474G Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.04.2021

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 4663/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ITA No. 4664/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ACIT, Vs M/s Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. Circle-11(2), Mehtab House, A-36, Mohan Co-op New Delhi Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACH7474G CO No. 190/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 CO No. 191/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 M/s Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Mehtab House, A-36, Mohan Co-op Circle-…

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4663/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4664/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Acit, Vs M/S Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. Circle-11(2), Mehtab House, A-36, Mohan Co-Op New Delhi Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7474G Co No. 190/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Co No. 191/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 M/S Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Mehtab House, A-36, Mohan Co-Op Circle-11(2), Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7474G Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.04.2021

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 4663/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ITA No. 4664/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ACIT, Vs M/s Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. Circle-11(2), Mehtab House, A-36, Mohan Co-op New Delhi Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACH7474G CO No. 190/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 CO No. 191/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 M/s Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Mehtab House, A-36, Mohan Co-op Circle-…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vishnu Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…IT 1968 67 ITR 84(SC), Sankappa (s) v ITO 1968 68 ITR 760 (SC) Raja Bahadur Vs CIT 1954 26 ITR 563-570, 571 (Pat). State Raja Syed Mohammed Saddat Ali Khan 1961 41 ITR 737 (SC), CIT Vs Straw Products Ltd 1966 60 ITR 156(SC), Madeva Upendra Sinai Vs UOI - 1975 98 ITR 209 -SC I. .vangadhar Chemical Works Ltd Vs CIT 1975 101 ITR 491 (Bom.), Shah JM Vs Bhatia JM AAc 1979, 94 ITR 519 (Bom), Anglo French Textiles Ltd v ITO 1976 103 ITR 2-2 'Rad.), it stands to reason that the development arising in the interval i.e. Hon'ble ITAT passing the order in the meanwhile in the appellant's main case i.e. SKG’s logically and ne…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vishnu Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…IT 1968 67 ITR 84(SC), Sankappa (s) v ITO 1968 68 ITR 760 (SC) Raja Bahadur Vs CIT 1954 26 ITR 563-570, 571 (Pat). State Raja Syed Mohammed Saddat Ali Khan 1961 41 ITR 737 (SC), CIT Vs Straw Products Ltd 1966 60 ITR 156(SC), Madeva Upendra Sinai Vs UOI - 1975 98 ITR 209 -SC I. .vangadhar Chemical Works Ltd Vs CIT 1975 101 ITR 491 (Bom.), Shah JM Vs Bhatia JM AAc 1979, 94 ITR 519 (Bom), Anglo French Textiles Ltd v ITO 1976 103 ITR 2-2 'Rad.), it stands to reason that the development arising in the interval i.e. Hon'ble ITAT passing the order in the meanwhile in the appellant's main case i.e. SKG’s logically and ne…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vishnu Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…IT 1968 67 ITR 84(SC), Sankappa (s) v ITO 1968 68 ITR 760 (SC) Raja Bahadur Vs CIT 1954 26 ITR 563-570, 571 (Pat). State Raja Syed Mohammed Saddat Ali Khan 1961 41 ITR 737 (SC), CIT Vs Straw Products Ltd 1966 60 ITR 156(SC), Madeva Upendra Sinai Vs UOI - 1975 98 ITR 209 -SC I. .vangadhar Chemical Works Ltd Vs CIT 1975 101 ITR 491 (Bom.), Shah JM Vs Bhatia JM AAc 1979, 94 ITR 519 (Bom), Anglo French Textiles Ltd v ITO 1976 103 ITR 2-2 'Rad.), it stands to reason that the development arising in the interval i.e. Hon'ble ITAT passing the order in the meanwhile in the appellant's main case i.e. SKG’s logically and ne…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vishnu Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…IT 1968 67 ITR 84(SC), Sankappa (s) v ITO 1968 68 ITR 760 (SC) Raja Bahadur Vs CIT 1954 26 ITR 563-570, 571 (Pat). State Raja Syed Mohammed Saddat Ali Khan 1961 41 ITR 737 (SC), CIT Vs Straw Products Ltd 1966 60 ITR 156(SC), Madeva Upendra Sinai Vs UOI - 1975 98 ITR 209 -SC I. .vangadhar Chemical Works Ltd Vs CIT 1975 101 ITR 491 (Bom.), Shah JM Vs Bhatia JM AAc 1979, 94 ITR 519 (Bom), Anglo French Textiles Ltd v ITO 1976 103 ITR 2-2 'Rad.), it stands to reason that the development arising in the interval i.e. Hon'ble ITAT passing the order in the meanwhile in the appellant's main case i.e. SKG’s logically and ne…

CIT vs. Dharampal Satyapal

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…rant of depreciation allowance would not be satisfied. 9. Mr Vohra, Senior Advocate appearing for the Assessee supported the decision of the ITAT. He further referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India: (1975) 98 ITR 209 (SC) in support of its contention that the written down value of the assets would be the actual cost of the assets as reduced by the depreciation actually allowed. He further referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mahendra Mills: (2000) 243 ITR 56 (SC) and contended that depreciation was an allowance available to the Assesse…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Dcm Shriram Consolidated Ltd

…Before the ITAT, the assessee relied upon the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Badridas Daga Vs. CIT, 34 ITR 10 (SC); Calcutta 2012:DHC:4648-DB ITA 1289/2010 Page 3 Discount Company Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 1 (SC); and Madeva Upendra Sinai Vs. CIT 98 ITR 209 (SC). After considering the rival contentions, the ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal. It reasoned that: “12. We have heard both sides and find ourselves in complete agreement with the contention of the assessee. There is no dispute that the assessee had been purchasing these containers required for dealing with chemical chlorine. Chlorine…