How many judgments cite Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT?

212 judgments on BharatTax cite Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (239 ITR 775), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 32, Section 148, Section 53A.

Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT

239 ITR 775Supreme Court of India1999#424 most cited

What is Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

For income tax purposes, the 'owner' of a property is the person who is entitled to receive income in their own right, bears the risks incidental to ownership, and utilizes the asset, even if the sale deed is not formally registered. This beneficial ownership is sufficient for claiming depreciation or capital gains exemption under relevant sections.

212

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mysore Minerals Ltd v CIT · 239 ITR 775 · Section 32 · Section 54 · Section 22 · definition of owner · beneficial ownership · depreciation claim · registration of sale deed not mandatory · real owner · capital gains exemption · Income from House Property

Also reported as

106 Taxmann 166

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 32 Section 148 Section 53A Section 54F Section 234A

Issues it is cited on

section 53a section 53 section 32(1)put to use section 32 intangible assets capital expenditure revenue expenditure long term capital gain section 26 transfer reasonable cause

Judgments citing Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT

VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 3115/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 54Section 54FSection 69A

…of the word 'owner' in the context of section 22 has been held to be a person who is entitled to receive income in his own right. The Apex Court in Mysore 25 Vinay Chaudhary Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 7751 and this Court in CIT v. R.L. Sood [2000] 245 ITR 7272 have held that registration of the document is not mandatory for claiming depreciation on the property. In this view of the matter, we have no doubt in our mind that the learned Tribunal went wrong in holding that for the purpose of applicability of section 54, registration of document is imperative. We, therefore, answer the question in the neg…

ITO WARD-53(3), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU MADHAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9321/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 53ASection 54

…ection 22 of the Act does not require registration of sale deed. The meaning of the word 'owner' in the context of section 22 has been held to be a person who is entitled to receive income in his own right. The Apex Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. C/T [1999] 239 ITR 775 and this Court in CIT v. R.L. Sood [2000] 245 ITR 727 have held that registration of the document is not mandatory for claiming depreciation on the property. In this view of the matter, we have no doubt in our mind that the learned Tribunal went wrong in holding that for the purpose of applicability of section 54, registration of document is Impe…

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

C.A. No.-004072-004072 - 2014Supreme Court19 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 32(1)(ii)

…clared services, relevant portion of which reads thus: S.66E. Declared Services: … Explanation (II) … (e) agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act; … 14 (1954) 25 ITR 265 15 (1999) 239 ITR 775 42 14.12. In the context of the Act, more particularly Section 32 thereof, there is no similar provision which specifically lays down that a right which is not capable of being put to use like the right acquired on payment of non-compete fee is nonetheless eligible for depreciation. 14.13. Summing up his arguments, Mr. Dwarakanath…

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54Section 54(2)Section 80T

…IT(IT)ANo.258/Bang/2025 HanchipuraChannaiah Nandakishore, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI,VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2nd Stage and Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2nd Stage, 14th Main, West of Chord ITO Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 PAN NO :BLRPN0428A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent by : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date of…

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Varadarajan D.P., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 45Section 54

…ection 22 of the Act does not require registration of sale deed. The meaning of the word ‘owner’ in the context of section 22 has been held to be a person who is entitled to receive income in his own right. The Apex Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 7751 and this Court in CIT v. R.L. Sood [2000] 245 ITR 7272 have held that registration of the document is not mandatory for claiming depreciation on the property. In this view of the matter, we have no doubt in our mind that the learned Tribunal went wrong in holding that for the purpose of applicability of section 54, registration of document is im…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-41(2)(4), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RBI EMPLOYEES BHAGVATI COOP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD , MULUND EAST, MUMBAI

ITA 4073/MUM/2025[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50CSection 53A

…e said to vest in the individual members themselves and not in the co-operative society. The appellant also placed reliance on the judgements of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (SC) AIR 1997, Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT 239 ITR 775 (SC) and Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Tribunal in Raj Ratan Co. Op. Hsg. Society Ltd. v. DCIT (12 taxmann.com 172)(Trib. Mumbai). 7.3. In the present case the individual members of the society purchased the respective flats from builder and thereafter they constituted a cooperative housing society. All the flats in the building and land appurtenant the…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-41(2)(4), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RBI EMPLOYEES BHAGVATI CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., MULUND EAST, MUMBAI

ITA 3595/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50CSection 53A

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, LKO, LUCKNOW vs. ACP TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 131/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Section 143(2)Section 32

…{ "clean_text": "I.T.A. No.131/Lkw/2024\nC.O.No.14/Lkw/2024\n1\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nLUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW\nBEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nI.T.A. No.131/Lkw/2024\n Assessment year:2021-22\nJCIT (OSD),\nC.C.-1, Lucknow\n(Appellant)\nVs. ACP Tollways Private Limited,\nB-9, Vibhuti Khand,\nGomti Nagar, Lucknow.\nPAN:AAKCA0630M\n(Respondent)\nC.O.No.14/Lkw/2024\n(in I.T.A. No.131/Lkw/2024)\n Assessment year:2021-22\nACP Tollways Private Limited,\nB-9, Vibhuti Khand,\nGomti Nagar, Lucknow.\nPAN:AAKCA0630M\n(Appellant)\nVs. JCIT (…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 547/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarn.K. Proteins Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. 7Th Floor, Popular House, Central Circle-1(2) Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacn 9377 N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar Revenue By: Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr & Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2025 & 19.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 3Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER N.K. Proteins Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, Vs. 7th Floor, Popular House, Central Circle-1(2) Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad PAN : AAACN 9377 N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR Revenue by: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR & Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr DR Date of Hearing 17.03.2025 & 19.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.06.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT : This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned Commissione…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 54

…ale deed. The meaning of the word 'owner' in the context of section 22 has been held to be a person who is entitled to receive income in his own right. The Apex Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 7751 and this Court in CIT v. R.L. Sood [2000] 245 ITR 7272 have held that registration of the document is not mandatory for claiming depreciation on the property. In this view of the matter, we have no doubt in our mind that the learned Tribunal went wrong in holding that for the purpose of applicability of section 54, registration of document is imperative. We, therefore, answer the question in the neg…

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA FINANCIAL SHARED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed and Cross objections I and II of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3332/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri Urvish ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr.DR)

Section 143(3)Section 32

…idental to ownership and utilizes the capital asset for the purpose of its business. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on certain judicial precedents in CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC),Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC)and Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 267 (SC).It is also submitted that the assessee is the real owner of the leased assets as it makes the choice of asset to be purchased, takes delivery of the asset, maintains and operates the assets, undertakes indemnity and bears the risk of loss or damage and gets the property insured. R…

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA FINANCIAL SHARED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed and\nCross objections I and II of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3331/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 32

…al to ownership and utilizes the\ncapital asset for the purpose of its business. In support of this\nproposition, reliance was placed on certain judicial precedents in\nCIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC), Mysore\nMinerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC)and Dalmia Cement\n(Bharat) Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 267 (SC).It is also submitted that\nthe assessee is the real owner of the leased assets as it makes the\nchoice of asset to be purchased, takes delivery of the asset,\nmaintains and operates the assets, undertakes indemnity and bears\nthe risk of loss or damage and gets the property insur…

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2672/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT &

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

…” should be interpreted in such a manner, which will enable the assessee to obtain the benefit intended by the legislature. And in this behalf, it is relevant to refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Limited v. CIT 239 ITR 775(SC). Therefore, we are of the opinion that the reason given by the Assessing Officer to disallow the depreciation is totally incorrect, devoid of merit and thus, rejected. 16. The assessee had also relied upon the decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of Trivitron Healthcare P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra). The ITAT in the context of goodwill arising on…

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2670/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT &

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

KISAN,NIZAMABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 652/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, SR-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)

…ficial owner i.e. the person who exercised the control over the assets and uses the assets in the course of business. In support of their argument, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Mineral Limited Vs. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC) and submitted that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, the intention of the legislature in enacting the section 32 would be best fulfilled by allowing deduction in respect of depreciation to the person in whom for the time being vests the dominion over the building and who is entitled to use it in his own right and is using the same fo…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. SURAT ROAD KING, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6535/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 32(1)

…on of the Co-ordinate Bench has been over-ruled by another decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Edwise Consultant Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 27 (Mumbai - Trib.). 5.1.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC) has held that term ‘owned’ in Section 32(1) has a wider meaning. Tax benefit on account of depreciation legitimately belongs to one who has invested in the capital asset is utilizing the capital asset and thereby losing gradually investment caused by wear and tear, even if the registration of the asset may not have been completed in his name…

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS AND FEBRICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA , KOTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 953/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234A

…past. Which fact is not denied not any contrary evidence is brought on record. Rule of consistency is binding on the Revenue. 2. Supporting Case laws: 2.1 The Apex Court while interpreting section 32 of the Act, has held in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775, that S. 32 confers benefit on the assessee. The provision should be so interpreted and the word used therein should be assigned such meaning as would enable the assessee to secure the benefits intended to be given by the legislature to the assessee. It is also settled that where there are two possible interpretation of taxing provision, one whic…

DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD vs. EAST INDIA PETROLEUM LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1087/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1087/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. East India Petroleum Income Tax Limited Circle-8(1)(Incharge) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaace4494K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 06/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Terminalling Services To Oil Marketing Companies For Storage Of Bulk Liquid Products Including Fuels Like High Speed Diesel, Motor Spirit, Petroleum

For Appellant: Shri H.Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 32

…er and therefore, the word user should be interpreted in such a manner, it will enable the assessee to obtain the benefit intended by the legislature. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Limited, 239 ITR 775 (SC). The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the goodwill is an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and this fact has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd.(supra). Further, this fact has been 1…

SADHANA NAYYAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 17(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1310/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

…rgued that the car was in the use of assessee’s business. The assessee was thus entitled for depreciation on the said car. The assessee has referred following case law in support of his arguments:- a) Mysore Minerals Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC). b) Commissioner of Income Tax V. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd., [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC). c) Commissioner of Income Tax V. Mirza Ataullaha Baig, [1993] 202 ITR 291 (Bom-HC). 4 Sadhana Nayyar d) Commissioner of Income Tax V. Dilip Singh Sardar Singh Bagga, [1993] 201 ITR 995 (Bom-HC-Nag) e) CIT V. Aravali Fin Lease Ltd., [2012] 341 ITR 282(Guj-HC).…

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 245/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

…erred in holding that there was no transfer as the property was not registered in appellant's name. The appellant has relied on various case laws: 1. Dwarka Das Kapadia v. CIT [2003]/180 CTR (Bom) 107/260 ITR 491 (Bom) 2. Mysore Minerals Limited v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775/106. 3. CIT v. Dr. T.K. Dayalu [2011] 202 (Kar). 4. Dr. Maya Shenoy v. Asst.CIT [2009] 124 TTJ (Hyd.). 5. Dr. T. Achyutha v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 108 TTJ (Hyd.). 6. Basheer Noor Ullah Khan v. CIT - ITA No.575/Bang/2019 dated 31.07.2019. 7. Charanjit Singh Atwal v. ITO Ward-VI (1) Ludhiana. 8. Smt. Vasavi Pratap Chand v. Dy. CIT [2004] 89 ITD 73 (Del…

Showing 1–20 of 212 · Page 1 of 11

...