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

Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1074/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: 01/08/2022
Section 131Section 133Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ny of the authorities below, therefore, we can safely presume that the assessee is the beneficial owner of the assets. In holding so we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore minerals Ltd. vs CIT reported in 239 ITR 775 wherein it was held as under: "13. An overall view of the abovesaid authorities show that the very concept of depreciation suggests that the tax benefit on account of depreciation legitimately belongs to one who has invested in the capital asset, is utilizing the capital asset and thereby loosing gradually investment caused by wear and tear, and…

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Andhra Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1588/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1588/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1589/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jcit (Osd), Cc-7(2), M/S Andhra Expressway Ltd. R. No. 655, Aayakar बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gammon Bhavan, M. K. Road, House, Veer Savarkar Vs. Mumbai-400020 Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadca3577E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar : सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 01.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 29.06.2021, Passed By 2

For Appellant: Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80I

…others being excluded there from and having the right to use and occupy the property and/or to enjoy its usufruct in his own right would be the owner of the buildings, though a formal deed of title may not have been executed and registered." (Mysore Minerals 239 ITR 775 (SC), Noida Toll Bridge 213 Taxman 333 etc referred) 7.2.4. The issue was, thereafter, considered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs North Gujarat Expressway (2017) 82 taxman.com 224(Bom) and the Hon'ble High Court has clarified that an entity which constructs a road on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis on government lan…

M/S. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 744/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 40A(2)(b)

…the rulings relied upon by the ld AR. 69. In the context of whether a tangible asset in form of anicut facility has been built and owned by the assessee company, we refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 wherein it was held as under: “9. In our opinion, the term owned as occurring in section 32(1) must be assigned a wider meaning. Any one in possession of property in his own title exercising such dominion over the property as would enable others being excluded therefrom and having right to use and occupy the property and/or to enjoy its usufruct…

Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota vs. ACIT, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 291/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 40A(2)(b)

…the rulings relied upon by the ld AR. 69. In the context of whether a tangible asset in form of anicut facility has been built and owned by the assessee company, we refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 wherein it was held as under: “9. In our opinion, the term owned as occurring in section 32(1) must be assigned a wider meaning. Any one in possession of property in his own title exercising such dominion over the property as would enable others being excluded therefrom and having right to use and occupy the property and/or to enjoy its usufruct…

Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota vs. DCIT, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 201/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 40A(2)(b)

…the rulings relied upon by the ld AR. 69. In the context of whether a tangible asset in form of anicut facility has been built and owned by the assessee company, we refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 wherein it was held as under: “9. In our opinion, the term owned as occurring in section 32(1) must be assigned a wider meaning. Any one in possession of property in his own title exercising such dominion over the property as would enable others being excluded therefrom and having right to use and occupy the property and/or to enjoy its usufruct…

Southland Constructions (India) Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 2585/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2585/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S.Southland Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O.Shri T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate Ward-3, / Vs. 384 / 196, Lloyds Road,Chennai-600 086. Coimbatore. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaics-1899-Q (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) : (01थ- / Respondent) अपीलाथ-कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate 01थ-कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12/10/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Coimbatore [Cit(A)] Dated 27/07/2018 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 26/12/2016. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee That It Has Been Denied Depreciation On Motor Car Which Was Registered The Name Of One Of The Directors.

For Appellant: Shri T.N.Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…he assessee towards purchase of car. The interest paid on loan to purchase the car was claimed as well as allowed and therefore, the assessee was eligible to claim the depreciation in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. V/s CIT (239 ITR 775). 4. We find that it is undisputed fact that the assessee made payment of the car and it was also allowed interest paid on repayment of loan. There are no findings that the car was being used for the purpose of business. Therefore, merely because it was registered in the name of director would not vitiate depreciation claim of the assessee. The a…

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 848/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Tax, Central Circle – 7(2), Vs. Ltd., 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex M.K. Road, Mumbai -400 020 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(ii)

…heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We have gone through the facts and noted from the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for assessee of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (239 ITR 775), wherein it is held as under: - ITA No.848/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2012-13 6 DCIT,CC-7(2) Vs. M/s Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. “In our opinion, the term owned" as occurring in section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must be assigned a wider meaning. Anyone in possession of property in his own title exercising such dominion over the property as would…

Shri. Sajal Radhikamohan Kar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-27 (3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6476/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shri Sajal Radhikamohan Kar Acit,Circle -27(3) 503, Swastik Solitaire, Chadve Vs. Tower 6, Vashi Railway Chs, Sion Trombay Road, Station Complex, Chember, Mumbai – 400071 Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan No. Aadpk3367P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Reepal G.Tralshawala, A.R Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G.Tralshawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 54

…fit under the IT Act. The word and phrase "owner" in the context of s. 22 of the IT Act has been elaborated in CIT vs. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. Etc. (1997) 141 CTR (SC) 67 : (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC); and Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 156 CTR (SC) 1 : (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC). An assessee must have valid title legally conveyed to him after complying with the requirement of law or at least entitled to receive income from the property in his own right and have control and domain over the said property for all the legal purposes, which basically excluding a third person of any right over the said property. Therefore…

Dy CIT Circle- 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kosi Bridge Infrastructure Company Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37

…a thorough analysis of the entire law on the subject and concluded that the assessee has to be treated as the "owner" even though it has limited rights on the structure. The Tribunal relied on several judgements of the Supreme Court including Mysore Minerals 239 ITR 775 (SC) where the concept of ‘owner’ has been considered in great detail. 5.4 Further, similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT-9(1)(2), Mumbai vs Atlanta Ltd, Mumbai (ITA No, 3415/M/2015), Since, the facts of the appellant's case are similar to the aforesaid case laws, following the judicial precedence on the i…

ITO, Ward-32(4), New Delhi vs. Swati Oberoi, New Delhi

ITA 4150/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Senior DR
Section 54ESection 54F

…h assessee had not obtained a deed of conveyance from the vendor although it had taken possession who made part payment of the consideration, has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of 6 ITA No.4150/Del./2018 Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC) By returning following findings :- “ Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, confers a benefit on the assessee. The provision should be so interpreted and the words used therein should be assigned such meaning as would enable the assessee to secure the benefit intended to be given by the Legislature to the assessee. It is also well-settled…

Sagar Powertex Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Sagar Agencies Pvt.Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT, Range-8, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 304/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.304/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Sagar Powertex Pvt. Ltd., J.C.I.T., (Earlier Sagar Agencies Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Range-8, 803, Sahajanand Complex, Ahmedabad. Shahibaug Road, Shahiibaug Ahmedabad-380004. Pan: Aadcs0473P

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R
Section 14ASection 40Section 80Section 80I

…s purchased for the purpose of business of the appellant. Thus the motor car being, business asset of the appellant and purchased for the purpose of business and used as such by the appellant, in view of the decision in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC) referred to above and other decisions cited by the learned authorised representative, I hold that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on this ground is not justified and hence the same is directed to be deleted. 22. 2 In the present case it is not disputed that investment was made by the assessee in purchase of the motor car. It i…

M/S. Growmore Research & Assets Management Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 504/MUM/2019[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R
Section 147Section 14ASection 234Section 69

…and therefore depreciation was not allowable. In our opinion there is no requirement of the registered ownership of the property in order to claim the depreciation. The issue is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT 239 ITR 775 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that assessee is using the assets for the purpose of business is entitled to depreciation even if the asset was used is not registered in the name of the assessee. We are, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, inclined to affirm the 90 ITA No.259/M/2019 & ors. M/s. Gr…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. M/S.Growmore Research & Asset Management Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1196/MUM/2019[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R
Section 147Section 14ASection 234Section 69

…and therefore depreciation was not allowable. In our opinion there is no requirement of the registered ownership of the property in order to claim the depreciation. The issue is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT 239 ITR 775 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that assessee is using the assets for the purpose of business is entitled to depreciation even if the asset was used is not registered in the name of the assessee. We are, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, inclined to affirm the 90 ITA No.259/M/2019 & ors. M/s. Gr…

Asian Mills Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Addl.CIT, Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1397/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1397/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T., 104, Sakar Iii, Vs. Range-1, Opp. Old High Court, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aabca8236G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1531/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T., Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 104, Sakar Iii, Ahmedabad. Opp. Old High Court, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aabca8236G

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R
Section 194Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40Section 6Section 7

…considered the facts of the case I am inclined to accept the contentions of the Ld. A.R. As admitted by the A.O himself the funds for purchase of the cars were provided by the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. Vs. C.I.T. 239 ITR 775 (S.C) has held that the section of the I.T. Act, 1961, confers a benefit of the assessee. The provision should be so interpreted and the words used therein should be assigned such meaning as would enable the assessee to secure the benefit intended to be given by the Legislature to the assessee. It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court tha…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Wipro Limited

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

ITA/464/2017HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10ASection 260Section 260ASection 32

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.464 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(5), BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S. WIPRO LIMITED DODDAKANNELLI SARJAPUR ROAD BENGALURU-560025 PAN: AAACW0387R. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. GANESH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADV., FOR SRI. R.B. KRISHNA, A…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income -Tax vs. M/S Kawasaki Micro Electronics Inc

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/341/2016HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 195Section 260Section 260ASection 30Section 32Section 37Section 40

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.341 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BANGALORE-560095. 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-1(2), 4TH FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. KAWASAKI MICRO ELECTRONICS INC. 17TH FLOOR, CONCORDE BLOCK UB…

Bangalore Shirts Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in these appeals are allowed

ITA 267/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bangalore Shirt Co. Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer - 6(1)(3) C/O. Shankarlal Jain &Associates Aayakar Bhavan 12, Engineer Building Queens Road, Mumbai – 400 020 265, Princess Street Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aaacb2193G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Mrs. Kavita P. Kaushik

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Kavita P. Kaushik

…claimed as deduction. However, the Assessing Officer not convinced with the submissions of the assessee denied depreciation and interest on car loan. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Apex court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [239 ITR 775] and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga [201 ITR 995] allowed the claims of the assessee. 7. Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the counsel for the assessee strongly placed reliance on the orders of the Ld.CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused…

Bangalore Shirts Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in these appeals are allowed

ITA 266/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blem/S. Bangalore Shirt Co. Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer 115, Cama Industrial Estate Ward 3(1)(2) Sun Mill Compound 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Lower Parel (W) Queens Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacb2193G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar
Section 271(1)(c)

…claimed as deduction. However, the Assessing Officer not convinced with the submissions of the assessee denied depreciation and interest on car loan. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Apex court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [239 ITR 775] and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga [201 ITR 995] allowed the claims of the assessee. 7. Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the counsel for the assessee strongly placed reliance on the orders of the Ld.CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused…

Bangalore Shirts Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in these appeals are allowed

ITA 265/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blem/S. Bangalore Shirt Co. Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer 115, Cama Industrial Estate Ward 3(1)(2) Sun Mill Compound 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Lower Parel (W) Queens Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacb2193G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar
Section 271(1)(c)

…claimed as deduction. However, the Assessing Officer not convinced with the submissions of the assessee denied depreciation and interest on car loan. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Apex court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [239 ITR 775] and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga [201 ITR 995] allowed the claims of the assessee. 7. Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the counsel for the assessee strongly placed reliance on the orders of the Ld.CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused…

Bangalore Shirt Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in these appeals are allowed

ITA 498/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blem/S. Bangalore Shirt Co. Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer 115, Cama Industrial Estate Ward 3(1)(2) Sun Mill Compound 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Lower Parel (W) Queens Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacb2193G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar
Section 271(1)(c)

…claimed as deduction. However, the Assessing Officer not convinced with the submissions of the assessee denied depreciation and interest on car loan. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Apex court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [239 ITR 775] and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga [201 ITR 995] allowed the claims of the assessee. 7. Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the counsel for the assessee strongly placed reliance on the orders of the Ld.CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused…