Motor Company P Ltd. v. DCIT

378 ITR 707Reported decision#15744 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing Motor Company P Ltd. v. DCIT

B & A Digi Tactical Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 304/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: 23-08-2017
Section 31Section 32Section 37

…cal Company Ltd v. CIT 154 ITR 655 (MP) and Khimji Visram and Sons P Ltd v CIT 209 ITR 993 (Guj.). 9. In this context, it will serve useful purpose to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court dated 18.8.2015 in lndus Motor Company P Ltd v. DCIT 378 ITR 707. While examining a similar claim the Hon’ble Court observed “.... after the introduction of Explanation 1 to section 32(1) of the Act, there is no scope left out at all for any interpretation since by a legal fiction, the assessee is treated as the owner of the building for the period of his occupation. This means that by refurbishing, decorating…

B and A Digi Tactical Solutions Private Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1503/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1503/Mds/2016 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: 17.04.2017
Section 31Section 32Section 37

…cal Company Ltd v. CIT 154 ITR 655 (MP) and Khimji Visram and Sons P Ltd v CIT 209 ITR 993 (Guj.). 9. In this context, it will serve useful purpose to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court dated 18.8.2015 in lndus Motor Company P Ltd v. DCIT 378 ITR 707. While examining a similar claim the Hon’ble Court observed “.... after the introduction of Explanation 1 to section 32(1) of the Act, there is no scope left out at all for any interpretation since by a legal fiction, the assessee is treated as the owner of the building for the period of his occupation. This means that by refurbishing, decorating…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Amec Foster Wheeler India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1762/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A Department by : Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…d to that of a case where minor repairs as in the case of Ayesha Hospital (supra) were carried out. 14.ln this context it will serve useful purpose to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court dated 18.8.2015 in Indus Motor Company P Ltd v. DC IT 378 ITR 707. While examining a similar claim the Hon'ble Court observed " .... after the introduction of Explanation 1 to section 32(1) of the Act, there is no scope left out at all for any interpretation since by a legal ITA Nos.1531 & 1762/16 :- 6 -: & C.O.No.106/2016. fiction, the assessee is treated as the owner of the building for the period of his oc…

Amee Foster Wheeler India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1531/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A Department by : Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…d to that of a case where minor repairs as in the case of Ayesha Hospital (supra) were carried out. 14.ln this context it will serve useful purpose to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court dated 18.8.2015 in Indus Motor Company P Ltd v. DC IT 378 ITR 707. While examining a similar claim the Hon'ble Court observed " .... after the introduction of Explanation 1 to section 32(1) of the Act, there is no scope left out at all for any interpretation since by a legal ITA Nos.1531 & 1762/16 :- 6 -: & C.O.No.106/2016. fiction, the assessee is treated as the owner of the building for the period of his oc…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Amec Foster Wheeler India Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1761/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 32(1)

…d to that of a case where minor repairs as in the case of Ayesha Hospital (supra) were carried out. 14.ln this context it will serve useful purpose to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court dated 18.8.2015 in Indus Motor Company P Ltd v. DC IT 378 ITR 707. While examining a similar claim the Hon'ble Court observed " .... after the introduction of Explanation 1 to section 32(1) of the Act, there is no scope left out at all for any interpretation since by a legal fiction, the assessee is treated as the owner of the building for the period of his occupation. This means that by refurbishing, decoratin…

Amee Foster Wheeler India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1530/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 32(1)

…d to that of a case where minor repairs as in the case of Ayesha Hospital (supra) were carried out. 14.ln this context it will serve useful purpose to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court dated 18.8.2015 in Indus Motor Company P Ltd v. DC IT 378 ITR 707. While examining a similar claim the Hon'ble Court observed " .... after the introduction of Explanation 1 to section 32(1) of the Act, there is no scope left out at all for any interpretation since by a legal fiction, the assessee is treated as the owner of the building for the period of his occupation. This means that by refurbishing, decoratin…

Motor Company P Ltd. v. DCIT (378 ITR 707) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax