New Shorroc Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. v. VIT

108 ITR 14High Court1977#16516 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing New Shorroc Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. v. VIT

DCIT. CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1990/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Torque Automotive Pvt. Dcit Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, Mrudul Tower, Ahmedabad Vs Behind Times Of India, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- 380009 [Pan No. : Aacct6528R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Alok Kumar, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23.11.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…wer authorities and material available on record. In the instant case, we find that no material was brought on record to show that any new asset was acquired by the assessee. We find that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court the case of ACIT vs. Desai Bros., (1977) 108 ITR 14 (Guj.), held that even replacement of the petrol engine by a diesel engine would not bring into existence a new asset and was allowable as current repairs. Further, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rameshwar Prasad Kejriwal & Sons (P.) Ltd., (1994) 74 taxman 124 (Cal.), held that replacement of parts of a machine, even if suc…

ASHAPURA FORWARDERS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2094/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…wer authorities and material available on record. In the instant case, we find that no material was brought on record to show that any new asset was acquired by the assessee. We find that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court the case of ACIT vs. Desai Bros., (1977) 108 ITR 14 (Guj.), held that even replacement of the petrol engine by a diesel engine would not bring into existence a new asset and was allowable as current repairs. Further, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rameshwar Prasad Kejriwal & Sons (P.) Ltd., (1994) 74 taxman 124 (Cal.), held that replacement of parts of a machine, even if suc…

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RISHIROOP POLYMERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7384/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A.7384/Mum/2016, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 3(3)(1) M/S. Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Room No.609, 6Th Floor, 65, Atlanta, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan:Aaacr1789G

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia-ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

….2,92,889/- was also paid. Replacement or repair of old wall cannot lead to a conclusion that new capital assets came into existence. I refer here to the decision in the case of New Shorroc Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. v. VIT so ITR 338 (Bom); Addl.CIT v. Desai Bros -.108 ITR 14 (Guj); CIT v. Chowgule & C0. (P) Ltd. 81 Taxman 384/214 ITR 523(Bom); CIT v. Saravana Sp. Mills (P) Ltd. 163 Taxman 201215293 IT'R 201(SC); CIT v. Janakiram Mills Ltd. 275 ITR 403(Madras); CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. 99 Taxman 575 (SC); CIT v. Manohar Lal Him Ltd. 219 Taxman 161; CIT v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. 226 ITR 230 - Madras High Court.…

DCIT CIR 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RISHIROOP RUBBER INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and that of the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 1725/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Rishiroop Rubber International Ltd. Circle-3(3)(1), Room No.609, 6Th Floor, 65, Atlanta, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Pan: Aaacr1789G Appellant .. Respondent M/S Rishiroop Rubber International Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-3(3)(1), Room No.609, 6Th Floor, 65, Atlanta, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Pan: Aaacr1789G Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By .. Shri B.S. Bist, Sr. Dr Assessee By .. Shri Jayesh Dedia, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 15-11-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 15-11-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 14A

….2.92,889/-was also paid. Replacement or repair of old walls cannot lead to a conclusion that new capital assets came into existence. I refer here to the decision in the case of New Shorroc Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. v. VIT so ITR 338 (Bom); Addl.CIT v. Desai Bros -.108 ITR 14 (Guj); CIT v. Chowgule & C0. (P) Ltd. 81 Taxman 384/214 ITR 523(Bom); CIT v. Saravana Sp. Mills (P) Ltd. 163 Taxman 201215293 IT'R 201(SC); CIT v. Janakiram Mills Ltd. 275 ITR 403(Madras); CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. 99 Taxman 575 (SC); CIT v. Manohar Lal Him Ltd. 219 Taxman 161; CIT v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. 226 ITR 230 - Madras High Court. I…

ITO, WD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STOLL BERG INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 310/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Years:2006-07

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…R 165 (Mad), CIT vs. Khalsa Nirbhai Transport Co. (P) ITA No.310/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO Wd-11(1) Kol. vs. M/s Stoll Berg India Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 741 (P&H), C.R. Corera vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 188 (Mad) and Addl. CIT vs. Desai Bros. (1977) 108 ITR 14 (Guj) relied on The fact that written down value together with expenditure incurred on repairs excluded the original cost of asset is not valid ground for disallowance of expenditure as current repairs.” Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments, we find no reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A). We hold accordingly. This ground of R…