Natco Exports v. DCIT

86 ITD 445Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2003#14468 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing Natco Exports v. DCIT

Ocimum Bio Solutions India Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is also allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2091/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P. Madhavi Devi & D.S. Sunder Singh(Through Video Conference) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Ocimum Bio Solutions India Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Ltd., Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas

…sessee has rightly claimed the depreciation on the assets, hence, requested to set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the addition made by the AO. The assessee relied on the decision of Natco Exports Vs DCIT of ITAT, Hyderabad reported in (2003) 86 ITD 445 and Coramandal Bio Tech Industries Ltd(2012) 20 Taxmann.com 520 Hyderabad bench. 6 ITA.Nos. 1751 & 2091/Hyd/2018 Ocimum Bio Solutions India Ltd., Hyd.. 8. Per contra, the ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and argued that the ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the depreciation after verifying the details and vouchers, since,…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Ocimum Bio Solutions India Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is also allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1751/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P. Madhavi Devi & D.S. Sunder Singh(Through Video Conference) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Ocimum Bio Solutions India Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Ltd., Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas

…sessee has rightly claimed the depreciation on the assets, hence, requested to set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the addition made by the AO. The assessee relied on the decision of Natco Exports Vs DCIT of ITAT, Hyderabad reported in (2003) 86 ITD 445 and Coramandal Bio Tech Industries Ltd(2012) 20 Taxmann.com 520 Hyderabad bench. 6 ITA.Nos. 1751 & 2091/Hyd/2018 Ocimum Bio Solutions India Ltd., Hyd.. 8. Per contra, the ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and argued that the ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the depreciation after verifying the details and vouchers, since,…

A.C.I.T Cir - 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Metal Box India Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, I.T.A. No

ITA 1916/KOL/2017[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1673 & 1674/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 1996-97 & 1997-98 Metal Box India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 9196 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1916/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 1996-97 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata -Vs- Metal Box India Ltd. [Pan: Aabcm 9196 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 254Section 43B

…nters the particular block of assets and depreciation granted thereon for the whole block as such, the concerned asset loses its identity. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Natco Exports vs DCIT reported in 86 ITD 445. Moreover, the condition of ‘put to use’ should be tested only in the year of installation or purchase and not thereafter. Hence we hold that the depreciation is allowable on the entire block of assets in the instant case. In any case, the basis adopted by the authorities below of disallowing 50% of depreciation claimed is not in accordance with l…

Metal Box India Ltd, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, I.T.A. No

ITA 1674/KOL/2017[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2018AY 1997-1998

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1673 & 1674/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 1996-97 & 1997-98 Metal Box India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 9196 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1916/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 1996-97 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata -Vs- Metal Box India Ltd. [Pan: Aabcm 9196 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 254Section 43B

…nters the particular block of assets and depreciation granted thereon for the whole block as such, the concerned asset loses its identity. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Natco Exports vs DCIT reported in 86 ITD 445. Moreover, the condition of ‘put to use’ should be tested only in the year of installation or purchase and not thereafter. Hence we hold that the depreciation is allowable on the entire block of assets in the instant case. In any case, the basis adopted by the authorities below of disallowing 50% of depreciation claimed is not in accordance with l…

Metal Box India Ltd, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, I.T.A. No

ITA 1673/KOL/2017[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2018AY 1996-1997

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1673 & 1674/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 1996-97 & 1997-98 Metal Box India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 9196 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1916/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 1996-97 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata -Vs- Metal Box India Ltd. [Pan: Aabcm 9196 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 254Section 43B

…nters the particular block of assets and depreciation granted thereon for the whole block as such, the concerned asset loses its identity. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Natco Exports vs DCIT reported in 86 ITD 445. Moreover, the condition of ‘put to use’ should be tested only in the year of installation or purchase and not thereafter. Hence we hold that the depreciation is allowable on the entire block of assets in the instant case. In any case, the basis adopted by the authorities below of disallowing 50% of depreciation claimed is not in accordance with l…

Everest Industires Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT RG 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 3804/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…al in the case of Coromandal Bio Tech Industries (I) Ltd. in ITA Nos. 287 to 289/Hyd/2007 & 1512/Hyd/08, vide order dated 30/03/2012, examined this issue and by placing reliance on the decision rendered by the same Bench in the case of Natco Exports Vs. DCIT, 86 ITD 445 (Hyd.), held as follows: 16 Everest Industries Limited "16. The condition/requirement of section of word 'used for the purpose of business' as provided in section 32(1) of the Act for the concept of depreciation on block of assets can be summarised, that use of individual asset for the purpose of business can be examined only in the first year t…

The ITO 8(1)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gtc Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7223/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…Therefore, when the assessee is claiming depreciation on block of asset, out of such depreciation claimed some disallowance cannot be made on the ground that some assets forming part of the block have not been used for the business. In Natco Exports v/s DCIT, 86 ITD 445 (Hyd.), relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative, it has been held that the expression used “for the purpose of business” has to be construed to mean that the discarded plant and machinery on which the assessee has claimed depreciation was used for the purpose of assessee’s business in the earlier financial years even though they may n…