PCIT v. Central Warehousing Corporation

399 ITR 212Reported decision2017#24815 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

corporate guaranteesection 32(1)associated enterprisessection 32associated enterprisesection 92revenue expenditureinternational transactioncapital expendituresection 234bsection 37(1)section 234

Judgments citing PCIT v. Central Warehousing Corporation

Goldman Sachs (India) Finance Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 6766/MUM/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 253Section 32Section 37(1)

…tructure, renovation or improvement of the premises. 14. Now the issue arises whether depreciation is an expenditure, and therefore, can it be recharged? We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Central Warehousing Corporation, reported in (2017) 399 ITR 212 (Del), after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nectar Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, reported in (2009) 314 ITR 314 (SC), held that irrespective of the provision in which the word “depreciation” is used, owing to the very nature of the word, it is not a loss or an expenditure or a trading liability. 15. Therefore, in light o…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…f the capital asset was includible in the total income as balancing charge only under section 41 (2). That concept wasforeign to the scheme ofsection 41 (l). " (emphasis supplied). b. The Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Central Warehousing Corporation 399 ITR 212 was concerned with an issue whether the income exempt from tax under section 10(29) of the Act is to be computed after excluding depreciation as part of the expenditure. After referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Nectar Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and CIT v. Anand Theatres 244 ITR 192 the Court observed in paragrap…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…f the capital asset was includible in the total income as balancing charge only under section 41 (2). That concept wasforeign to the scheme ofsection 41 (l). " (emphasis supplied). b. The Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Central Warehousing Corporation 399 ITR 212 was concerned with an issue whether the income exempt from tax under section 10(29) of the Act is to be computed after excluding depreciation as part of the expenditure. After referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Nectar Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and CIT v. Anand Theatres 244 ITR 192 the Court observed in paragrap…

PCIT v. Central Warehousing Corporation (399 ITR 212) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax