Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT

Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

…ts:- Reliance Industries Ltd [2016] 69 Taxmann.com 311 (Mumbai ITAT)( dt. May 18, 2016) Capgemini Business Services (India) Ltd [2016] 68 Taxmann.com 36 (Mumbai ITAT) (dt. February 29,2016) CIT vs. Vegetable Products (88 ITR 192)(SC) Mysore Minerals vs. CIT (239 ITR 775 (SC) UOI vs. Onkar S. Kanwar (258 ITR 761)(SC) Pradip J Mehta vs CIT (300 ITR 231)(SC) Mahindra & Mahindra vs DCIT (58 TTJ 567 (Mumbai ITAT) 10. The Ld. Senior Counsel requested for upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) in view of the aforesaid arguments and facts and circumstances of the case. 11. We have gone through the arguments made by both the…

Sanjay G Vadodaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Sanjay G. Vadodaria, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 29/B Roop Kamal 426, S.V. 25(3)(4), Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400067 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepv9502A यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Mrs. Zarna P. Chandwani & Mr. Pradeep Chandwani याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Vishwas Mundhe-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

…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…

Keshav Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Cn Prasad & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal: (A.Y : 2010-11) M/S Keshav Securities P.Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 4(3) Plot No.7, Ashok Nagar Society Mumbai N.S.Road, Jvpd Scheme Mumbai – 400 049 Pan : Aacck2279A (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

…ti Sugar Mills Co Ltd (supra) held that the company was entitled to depreciation on car which was owned by it but not registered in its name. The law in this regard was also clarified by Hon’ble Supreme Court way back in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd vs CIT 239 ITR 775 (SC). It is further noticed by us that the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in its later judgment passed in the case of Edwise Consultants Pvt Ltd (supra) clarified the correct legal position in this regard and following the aforesaid judgements of high courts held that depreciation will be allowable in such a situation. “ Facts in this case…

DCIT Cen Cir 12, Mumbai vs. Mahan Industries Ltd, Ahemedabad

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mahan Industries Ltd., 3Rd Floor, K.K. House, Nr. Central Cir. 12, Room No. 803, Vs. 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building Mithakali Under Bridge, Ellis (Annex), M.K. Road, Mumbai-20 Bridge Ahmedabad. Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcm0370P Co No.03/Mum/2016 (Ita No.1553/Mum/2014 A.Y: 2007-08) Mahan Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 3Rd Floor, K.K. House, Nr. Central Cir. 12, Room No. 8Th Mithakali Under Bridge, Ellis Vs. 803, Floor, Old Cgo Bridge Ahmedabad. Building (Annex), M.K. Road, Mumbai-20 Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By .. Shri Suman Kumar, Dr Assessee By .. Shri Aseem L.Thakkar, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 27-02-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 27-02-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

…ti Sugar Mills Co Ltd (supra) held that the company was entitled to depreciation on car which was owned by it but not registered in its name. The law in this regard was also clarified by Hon’ble Supreme Court way back in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd vs CIT 239 ITR 775 (SC). It is further noticed by us that the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in its later judgment passed in the case of Edwise Consultants Pvt Ltd (supra) clarified the correct legal position in this regard and following the aforesaid judgements of high courts held that depreciation will be allowable in such a situation. 11. Respectfully fol…

Premeshwar Creations P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Permeshwar Creations Dcit-8(2), Pvt. Ltd. Room No.209, बनाम/ Plot No.52, 7Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Midc Marol, M.K. Road, Andheri(E), Churchgate, Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcp3517F

…ed as trend setter in the 6 M/s Permeshwar Creations Pvt. Ltd. concept of ownership. Assistance from the law laid down therein can be taken for finding out the meaning of the term ‘owned as accruing in section 32(1) of the Act, Maysore Minerals vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775, 778, 780 (SC), CIT vs WEP Peripherals Ltd. (2014) 362 ITR 508 (Karn.) and CIT vs Jawahar Kala Kendra (2014) 362 ITR 515 (Raj.). Another decision from Hon'ble Madras High Court in A.M.P. Mudaliyar vs CIT 228 ITR 454, 459 (mad.) throws light on the explanation ‘owned by the assessee’. Following the Madras decision (228 ITR 454), it was held by Hon…

Mehta Equities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

…ti Sugar Mills Co Ltd (supra) held that the company was entitled to depreciation on car which was owned by it but not registered in its name. The law in this regard was also clarified by Hon’ble Supreme Court way back in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd vs CIT 239 ITR 775 (SC). It is further noticed by us that the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in its later judgment passed in the case of Edwise Consultants Pvt Ltd (supra) clarified the correct legal position in this regard and following the aforesaid judgements of high courts held that depreciation will be allowable in such a situation. 18. It is further no…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. V. Hotels Ltd ( Formelry Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…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…

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…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…