Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT

239 ITR 775Supreme Court of India1999#419 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.

215

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 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 147Section 32Section 148Section 53ASection 54FSection 234A

Issues it is cited on

section 53asection 53section 32(1)put to usesection 32intangible assetscapital expenditurerevenue expenditurelong term capital gainsection 26transferreasonable cause

Judgments citing Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. V. Hotels Ltd, Earlier Known As Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4215/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…FSI in the building and the ownership lies with the assessee then depreciation has to be allowed on the full value of the asset. In support, he strongly relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs CIT, reported in 231 ITR 775. 15. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR submitted that, the FSI can neither be considered under the building block of assets nor it can be taken as block of intangible asset. The value of FSI should be included in the value of the land as held by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the same year, wherein it has been held that ‘addition…

V. Hotels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3191/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…FSI in the building and the ownership lies with the assessee then depreciation has to be allowed on the full value of the asset. In support, he strongly relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs CIT, reported in 231 ITR 775. 15. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR submitted that, the FSI can neither be considered under the building block of assets nor it can be taken as block of intangible asset. The value of FSI should be included in the value of the land as held by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the same year, wherein it has been held that ‘addition…

V. Hotels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3190/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…FSI in the building and the ownership lies with the assessee then depreciation has to be allowed on the full value of the asset. In support, he strongly relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs CIT, reported in 231 ITR 775. 15. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR submitted that, the FSI can neither be considered under the building block of assets nor it can be taken as block of intangible asset. The value of FSI should be included in the value of the land as held by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the same year, wherein it has been held that ‘addition…

V. Hotels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3189/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…FSI in the building and the ownership lies with the assessee then depreciation has to be allowed on the full value of the asset. In support, he strongly relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs CIT, reported in 231 ITR 775. 15. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR submitted that, the FSI can neither be considered under the building block of assets nor it can be taken as block of intangible asset. The value of FSI should be included in the value of the land as held by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the same year, wherein it has been held that ‘addition…

Indogem, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part, as indicated above

ITA 3442/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: (A.Y : 2012-13) M/S. Indogem Vs. Ito-19(1)(5), Mumbai He 8111, H Tower, Bharat Diamond (Respondent) Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Pan : Aaafi0510K (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Kardam
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 50Section 50(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : (A.Y : 2012-13) M/s. Indogem Vs. ITO-19(1)(5), Mumbai HE 8111, H Tower, Bharat Diamond (Respondent) Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. PAN : AAAFI0510K (Appellant) Assessee by : Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue by : Shri A.K. Kardam Date of Hearing : 18/07/2016 Date of Pronouncement : 24/08/2016 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, AM : This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order in appeal no. CIT(A)-30/ITO-19(1)(5)/735/2014-15 dated 17.3.20…

Sh. Ankit Mittal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1511/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR
Section 24Section 24(1)(vi)

…eal Traders (2010) 327 ITR 0034 (P&H) " CIT Vs Babu Khan Builders & Ors. (2010) 325 ITR 133 (A.P.) " Pallonji M. Mistry (DECD.) Vs CIT (2009) 319 ITR 0167 (Bom.) " Universal Radiators Ltd. Vs CIT (2006) 281 ITR 0261 (Mad.) " Mysore Minerals Ltd. Vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775(SC) " S.V. Chandra Pandian Vs S.V. Sivalinga Nadar (1995) 212 ITR 592 (SC) " CIT Vs Fazilka Dabwali TPT. CO. (P) Ltd. (2004) 270 ITR 0398 (P&H) " Addl. CIT Vs U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. (1981) 127 ITR 97 (All.) 8. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that as per the provisions of Section 22 of…

Ald Automotive P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 907/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 907 & 109/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08) Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), बनाम/ 13Th Floor, Maker Chamber Iv, Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca 0924 K (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2179 & 601/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 13Th Floor, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca 0924 K (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Brijmohan P. Agarwal Revenue By : Shri B. B. Rajendra Prasad सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 25.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2007-08 & 2008-09, U/S. 253 Of (A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09) Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter), Arising Out Of The Orders By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 31.12.2012. The Appeals Raise Two Issues, One Brought By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue, I.E., With Regard To: A) Depreciation On Lease Assets; & B) Transfer (Of A Part) Of Fleet Management Charges To Maintenance Accounts

For Appellant: Shri Brijmohan P. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri B. B. Rajendra Prasad
Section 253

…erating lease, so that it, as a lessor, is a real owner of the vehicle leased, with the lessee being allowed only the right to user and concomitant possession. He, accordingly, directed allowance of depreciation, relying on Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC). Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal, raising the following Ground: ‘1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing depreciation to the assessee on vehicles given on lease without appreciating the fact that the vehicles were not registered in the name of the assessee and the same we…

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Ald Automotive P.Tld, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 2179/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 907 & 109/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08) Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), बनाम/ 13Th Floor, Maker Chamber Iv, Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca 0924 K (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2179 & 601/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 13Th Floor, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca 0924 K (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Brijmohan P. Agarwal Revenue By : Shri B. B. Rajendra Prasad सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 25.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2007-08 & 2008-09, U/S. 253 Of (A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09) Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter), Arising Out Of The Orders By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 31.12.2012. The Appeals Raise Two Issues, One Brought By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue, I.E., With Regard To: A) Depreciation On Lease Assets; & B) Transfer (Of A Part) Of Fleet Management Charges To Maintenance Accounts

For Appellant: Shri Brijmohan P. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri B. B. Rajendra Prasad
Section 253

…erating lease, so that it, as a lessor, is a real owner of the vehicle leased, with the lessee being allowed only the right to user and concomitant possession. He, accordingly, directed allowance of depreciation, relying on Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC). Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal, raising the following Ground: ‘1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing depreciation to the assessee on vehicles given on lease without appreciating the fact that the vehicles were not registered in the name of the assessee and the same we…

ACIT Cir. 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4269/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Mbmer & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan
Section 14A

…not a condition precedent for legal ownership, unlike immovable property. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee in the light of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v/s CIT, [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC), held that as 39 Afcons Infrastructure Limited the assessee is in possession of assessee and it has utilised them for the purpose of its business, it is logical to claim depreciation. 53. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record in the light of the decisions relied upon. As could be seen…

DCIT Cir. - 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Metro Exporters P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2094/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar (DR)
Section 147Section 14ASection 28Section 3Section 37(1)Section 80H

…ut any finding to the effect; 4. Depreciation on cars erred in confirming disallowances of depreciation on car purchased in the name of an employee Rs. 200,565/-; erred in not accepting the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. (239 ITR 775) wherein it has been laid down that beneficial owner is entitle to depreciation on asset; 5. Export to Iraq Erred in confirming disallowances of commission paid to the agent or their nominee in respect of the Exports to Iraq; Erred in applying explanation to section 37(1) to the facts of the case in respect of commission paid to the agent or thei…

M/S. Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2026/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar (DR)
Section 147Section 14ASection 28Section 3Section 37(1)Section 80H

…ut any finding to the effect; 4. Depreciation on cars erred in confirming disallowances of depreciation on car purchased in the name of an employee Rs. 200,565/-; erred in not accepting the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. (239 ITR 775) wherein it has been laid down that beneficial owner is entitle to depreciation on asset; 5. Export to Iraq Erred in confirming disallowances of commission paid to the agent or their nominee in respect of the Exports to Iraq; Erred in applying explanation to section 37(1) to the facts of the case in respect of commission paid to the agent or thei…

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result ground, no

ITA 6282/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 92C

…G E Money Financial Services Pvt Limited A Y ITA No 5882/Del/2010 5816/Del/2011 & 6282/Del/2012 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-1”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5816/Del/2011(Assessment Year: 2007-08) GE Money Financial ACIT, Services Pvt. Ltd., Circle-12(1), Vs. 401, 402, 4th Floor, C.R.Building, Aggarwal Millennium New Delhi Tower, E-1,2,3, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi PAN:AAACC0642F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Sachit Jolly, Adv Sh. Rahul Sateja, Adv Sh. Gautam Swanib…

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground, no

ITA 5882/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 92C

…G E Money Financial Services Pvt Limited A Y ITA No 5882/Del/2010 5816/Del/2011 & 6282/Del/2012 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-1”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5816/Del/2011(Assessment Year: 2007-08) GE Money Financial ACIT, Services Pvt. Ltd., Circle-12(1), Vs. 401, 402, 4th Floor, C.R.Building, Aggarwal Millennium New Delhi Tower, E-1,2,3, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi PAN:AAACC0642F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Sachit Jolly, Adv Sh. Rahul Sateja, Adv Sh. Gautam Swanib…

Kedia Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Kedia Shares & Stock Acit, Brokers Limited, Circle-4(3), बनाम/ 418, Commerce House, Room No.649, 6Th Floor, Vs. 140, Nagindas Master Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400023 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaack2528E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 32oSection 42

…s Skylark & Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. 221 ITR 283 (Punjab), CIT vs A.P. Paper Mills 225 ITR 262 (A.P.), CIT vs Orient Longman Pvt. Ltd. 227 ITR 68 (A.P.), CIT vs Himachal Pradesh Mineral and Industrial Development Corporation 234 ITR 509 (HP), Mysore Minerals Ltd. 239 ITR 775 (SC), relying on CIT vs Poddar Cements Pvt. Ltd. 226 ITR 625 (SC) held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Revathi 245 ITR 686 (Mad.), CIT vs Thanthai PT Corporation 248 ITR 632 (Mad.), CIT vs WEP Perferals Ltd. (2014) 362 ITR 508 (Karn.) and CIT vs Jawhar Kala Kendra (2014) 362 ITR 515 (Raj.) supports the…

Stewarts & Lloyds of India Limited, Kolkata vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kol - I, Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2004-05 Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd. -Versus- C.I.T., Circle-1, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aaecs 0445G) (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, ACA & Shri Prakash Singh,ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…an assessee. Even in such cases, it has been held that legal ownership is not necessary and possession of assets would suffice for allowance of depreciation. Reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. -vs.- CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC) wherein it was held that anyone in possession of property for the time being in his own title and having right to use or occupy it and/ or to enjoy it in his own right for the purpose of business or profession would be the owner of the property though a formal deed of title may not have been executed and registered. It was argued that if pos…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Minda Fiamm Acoustic Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3579/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CA
Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…arding depreciation on vehicle used for assessee’s business but not registered in its name. We find that the ITAT has discussed this issue at page 5 onwards and following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd reported at 239 ITR 775 [SC] allowed relief to the assessee. Accordingly, facts and circumstances and basis being same and similar, respectfully following the same, we allow Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee in this A.Y also. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed. The decision is pronounced in the open court on…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 3386/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…r deduction should be interpreted liberally, reasonably and in favour of the assessee and it should be construed to give effect the object of the legislature and not to defeat it. Reliance was placed upon Bajaj Tempo vs CIT 196 ITR 188; Mysore Minerals vs CIT 239 ITR 775; CIT, Madras vs South Arcot District Co- operative Marketing Society Ltd. 176 ITR 117. 8.26. Inviting attention to sub-section (2A) it was submitted that the legislature has used the words “shall” in the sub-section (2A) and accordingly it makes the said sub-section mandatory for the Revenue Authorities. Inviting attention to CIT vs Anjum Ms Ghas…

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 3304/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…r deduction should be interpreted liberally, reasonably and in favour of the assessee and it should be construed to give effect the object of the legislature and not to defeat it. Reliance was placed upon Bajaj Tempo vs CIT 196 ITR 188; Mysore Minerals vs CIT 239 ITR 775; CIT, Madras vs South Arcot District Co- operative Marketing Society Ltd. 176 ITR 117. 8.26. Inviting attention to sub-section (2A) it was submitted that the legislature has used the words “shall” in the sub-section (2A) and accordingly it makes the said sub-section mandatory for the Revenue Authorities. Inviting attention to CIT vs Anjum Ms Ghas…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. D.V.S. Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4238/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-4238/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2006-07)

Section 32Section 32(1)

…he draws power from the said system in his own right as an owner. On this issue reliance is also placed on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court & Hon'ble High Court in cases of Jodhamal Kuthalia 82 ITR 570; Poddar Cement P. Ltd 226 ITR 625; Mysore Minerals Ltd. 239 ITR 775; Fazilka Dabwali Transport Co. 270 ITR 398 and several other decisions of Hon'ble High Court viz. CIT vs. Gaekwad & Co. 277 ITR 553; CIT vs. Sarabhai Chemicals P. Ltd. 254 ITR 625; CIT vs. Parthas Trust 249 ITR 120. The sum and substance of these decisions are that the term “ownership” as occurring in S. 32 of IT Act should be assigned a wider me…

ITO, Ward - 42(3), Kolkata vs. Shri Sushil Sarkar, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 518/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 22Section 27Section 50CSection 53A

…s of Hon'ble ITA No.518/Kol/2011 A.Y.2005-06 ITO Wd-42(3) Kol. V. Shri Sushil Sarkar Page 4 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Podder Cement Pvt. Ltd. reported in 226 ITR 625 (SC) and decision in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 239 ITR 775 (SC). The similar view was taken by the Hon'ble ITAT D-Bench, Kolkata in the case of Sharad Kr. Goenka, HUF Vs. ITO, Ward-36(2), Kolkata in ITA No. 1168/Kol/2007 dated 20-12-2007. The Hon'ble ITAT relied on the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Elecdro Zavod (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the case of appellant the consideration…