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

215 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#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 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

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…

Shri Kishan, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3030/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Kishan S/O Late Jagmal Vs Income Tax Officer Singh, H. No.112, Near Shiv Ward- 4 (2) Mandir, Village & P.O. Gurgaon Nakhrola, Tehsil, Manesar Distt. Gurgaon – 122001 Pan No. Aaacp0165G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Manoj Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer S/O Late Sh. Jagdish Chander Ward-2 (4) Village P & O. Nakhrola Gurgaon Tehsil Manesar Gurgaon-122001 Pan No. Atvpm1063B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 548Section 54B

…t to entering the agreement the assessee became the beneficial owner of the sold property. In this regard, we have no hesitation in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. Cit (1999) 106 Taxman 166/239 ITR 775 wherein it was held that when assessee was in possession of the property exercising and having right to use and occupy property he would be construed as the owner of the building though a formal deed of title could not have been executed and registered by taking possession of the property and making part payment thereon. It was held by the Hon'bl…

Manoj Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3029/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 548Section 54B

Nikesh Arora, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Gurgon

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1008/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2

…pecial Bench of the Tribunal in case of Des Raj Nagpal Vs. ITO, 13 ITD 800. He submitted, the expression ‘held’ cannot be equated with ownership. In this context, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. Vs. CIT, 239 ITR 775. Learned counsel submitted, the assessee enjoyed complete bundle of rights attached to the CCPS. He submitted, SIMI USA/Singapore entities merely held the shares in their names. However, they could not have alienated the shares to others. Therefore, the assessee, being the beneficial owner of the shares, should be construed to have held the ca…

Income Tax Officer, Nashik vs. Trambak Rubber Industries Private Limited, Sinnar, Nashik

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 845/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 295

…ermine the legal ownership, hence for the purpose of claiming depreciation, beneficial ownership is to be considered. The same was held by the Apex Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax [1999] 106 Taxman 166 (SC) / [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC) / [1999]. Therefore, taking into considering the ratio laid down by the CBDT in the Notification, I am of the considered opinion that the submission made by appellant that the Vehicle acquired by the appellant company was put to use immediately is acceptable in the light of the fact the Insurance Policy is effective immediately from the…

Mukesh Trends Lifestyle Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 828/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 828/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18)

For Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 828/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Mukesh Trends Lifestyle The Dy. Commissioner of बनाम/ Limited Income Tax Vs. N.H. No. -8, Narol-Naroda Circle - 2(1)(2), Road, Narol, Ahmedabad – Ahmedabad 382405 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCM0500F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Vihar Soni, AR अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20/02/2024 Date of Pronouncement…

Rugby Regency P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-21, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 M/S. Rugby Regency P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, 37-Ring Road, Range-21, Lajpat Nagar-Iv, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 024 Pan Aagcr5908K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 56(2)(viib)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2015-16 M/s. Rugby Regency P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, 37-Ring Road, Range-21, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 024 PAN AAGCR5908K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri R.S. Singhavi, CA Shri Satyajit Goel, CA Department by : Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 08/11/2023 Date of 25/01/2024 pronouncement O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.12.2018 of the Ld. Commissioner of Inc…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir. -4, Surat vs. Shri Hiteshkumar Laljibhai Patel, Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by revenue is dismissed

ITA 295/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.295/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Shri Hiteshkumar Laljibhai Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat, Room Patel, 52, Narayanmuni Nagar Vs No.508, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Society, Nani Ved Road, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395004 Pan Aanpp 3560 B 395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 198Section 254(1)

…e of third person, that it should be taxed in the real owner. The Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax in Civil Appeal No.5374 of 1994 [1999] reported viz; 239 ITR 775 (SC), wherein it was held that though the asset was registered in the name of Director, the claim of depreciation was allowable to the assessee-company for the reasons that company could not get register of asset in its own name to asset shown in the balance-sheet of company and its payment was made from the accounts of company and therefore, ass…

Bushra Javed, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2003/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Bushra Javed, Vs. Acit, D-112, Circle Int. Taxation 2 Lower Ground Floor, (1)(1) Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi-110 017 Pan Afgpj3907C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 48

…ons from the lender bank indicating that the assessee is joint borrower for the property were brought on record. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT 239 ITR 775 (SC); decision of Hon’ble P&H High Court in CIT vs. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) 207 ITR 148 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Frick India Ltd. 369 ITR 328. 6. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the Ld. AO and submitted that the agreement to sale is not in the name of the assessee. It was in the year 2010 that first time the…

Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.349/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(3), 2/4, Zankhana Apartment, Surat. 21 Narmad Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat – 395001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Dwipk2888D Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 10/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 54B

…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…

DCIT-1, (International Taxation), Hyderabad vs. Syama Reddy Malireddy, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 325/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…ayment and the assessee was at mercy of the builder for seeking the possession. In support of his case, ld. AR had relied on the following case laws : 7 Smt. Syama Reddy Malireddy i. Sanjeev Lal Vs. CIT – 365 ITR 389 (SC). ii. Mysore Minerals Ltd. Vs. CIT – 239 ITR 775 (SC). iii. Smt. Shashi Varma Vs. CIT – 224 ITR 106 (Madhya Pradesh High Court). iv. CIT Vs. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia – 216 ITR 376 (Bombay High Court). v. CIT Vs. R.L. Sood – 245 ITR 727 (Delhi High Court) vi. Balraj Vs. CIT – 254 ITR 22 (Delhi High Court). vii. CIT Vs. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari – 244 ITR 352 (Calcutta High Court). viii. Andhra Networ…

M/S. Corporate Leisure & Property Development Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 1053/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K., D.R

…has dealt with the matter as matter of fact. Hence, the said decision stands distinguished. 16.24 The reliance placed in para 4.16 of the order under section 250 of the Act on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals Limited v. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC) is not at all applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case in as much as there has been no handing over of possession to the purchaser. Without prejudice, the observation that the registration of the land is a mere formality is too farfetched in as much as even the entire consideration has not been received. Thus, to say that the re…

Sapphire Land Development P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-5(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 343/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sapphire Land Development Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 5(4) Room No. 5, 3Rd Floor Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor Capri, Anant Kanekar Marg Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aaacs7785H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Department Represented By : Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia

Section 14ASection 23(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Sapphire Land Development Pvt. Ltd., v. DCIT – Central Circle – 5(4) Room No. 5, 3rd Floor Room No. 1927, 19th Floor Capri, Anant Kanekar Marg Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 PAN: AAACS7785H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : None Department Represented by : Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia Date of Hearing : 05.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1481/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80I

…project and therefore, entitled to the claim made by the assessee under Section 80IA/80IA(4) of the Act. In support of the contention, the assessee further relied upon the following judgments: 1. CIT Vs J.H. Golta 156ITR 323(SC) 2. Mysore Minerals Ltd Vs CIT 239 ITR 775(SC) 3. Kerala State Industrial Development Corpn Ltd Vs CIT 259 ITR 51(SC) 4. Bajaj Tempo Ltd Vs CIT 196 ITR 188(SC) 5. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Others Vs CIT 227 ITR 414(SC) 6. CIT Vs Strawboard Manufacturing Co Ltd 177 ITR 431(SC) However, such plea taken by the assessee was not found to be acceptable and, thus, the asses…

Vijay M.Mistry Construction Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2938/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80I

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Ajanta Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1349/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

…ance would be the actual cost of acquisition of the assets less all the actually allowed depreciation in the preceding assessment years. The CIT(A)'s detailed discussion appears to have followed hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Mysore Minerals [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC) that what matters 12 I.T.A.No.1349/PUN/2016 M/s. Ajanta Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad. in such a claim of depreciation is the concerned assessee’s dominion and control over the asset than the actual ownership thereof as it is claim at the Revenue’s behest before us. We thus uphold the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion granting the impugne…

M/S. Dineshchandra R.Agrawal Infracon Pvt.Ltd., Deesa vs. The Jt.CIT, B.K.Range, Palanpur

In the result, ground number 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1754/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

Section 234BSection 271Section 40A(3)

…o proof or evidence have been submitted to substantiate the claim that the dominion over the assets were with the assessee company and the assets were used for the business of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO relied on this case of Mysore minerals Ltd v. CIT 239 ITR 775 (SC) and disallowed the claim of depreciation on such assets and also the vehicle insurance expenses were also disallowed. 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal, and confirmed the order of the AO with the following observations: “3.5. On going through the facts and submissions, it was found that the appellant has claime…

M/S. Jugalkishore R. Agrawal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Deesa vs. The Jt. CIT, B.K.Range, Palanpur

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1703/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

…o proof or evidence have been submitted to substantiate the claim that the dominion over the assets were with the assessee company and the assets were used for the business of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO relied on this case of Mysore minerals Ltd v. CIT 239 ITR 775 (SC) and disallowed the claim of depreciation on such assets and also the vehicle insurance expenses were also disallowed. 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal, and confirmed the order of the AO with the following observations: “3.5 On going through the facts and submissions, it was found that the appellant has claimed…