Poonawala Finvest & Agro (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

12 DTR 211Reported decision2008#22284 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2017.

Judgments citing Poonawala Finvest & Agro (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHENNAI CITY CENTER HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2224/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2224/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri. Ashish Tripathi, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. A. Sushma Harini, Adv

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2224/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2012-2013 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s. Chennai City Centre Income Tax, Vs. Holdings P. Ltd, Corporate Circle 1(2) No.5, Bukharia Buildings, Chennai. Moores Road, Chennai 600 006. [PAN AAACG 3869Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. A…

ACIT, MADURAI vs. BHIMA JEWELLERY, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 109/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 108/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Mrs. Ilavarasi, Addl. CIT
Section 131(1)Section 32Section 32(1)

…was that assessee could not claim enhanced depreciation available to windmills by showing such items as part of the windmills. Reliance was placed on the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Poonawala Finvest & Agro (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (2008) 12 DTR 211. As per ld. ITA Nos. 108 & 109/Mds/2017 :- 7 -: Departmental Representative, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) fell in error in holding that electrical items and civil works were part of the windmills. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Popular Borewell Service and Others, 194…

ACIT, MADURAI vs. BHIMA JEWELLERY, NAGERCOIL

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 108/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 108/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Mrs. Ilavarasi, Addl. CIT
Section 131(1)Section 32Section 32(1)

…was that assessee could not claim enhanced depreciation available to windmills by showing such items as part of the windmills. Reliance was placed on the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Poonawala Finvest & Agro (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (2008) 12 DTR 211. As per ld. ITA Nos. 108 & 109/Mds/2017 :- 7 -: Departmental Representative, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) fell in error in holding that electrical items and civil works were part of the windmills. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Popular Borewell Service and Others, 194…

Poonawala Finvest & Agro (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (12 DTR 211) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax