Premier Industries Limited v. CIT

323 ITR 672High Court2010#11489 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 80A(6)Section 80IASection 80IA(8)

Judgments citing Premier Industries Limited v. CIT

ITO Ward 1, Puducherry vs. Les Ateliers Pondicherry (P) Ltd., Pondicherry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 1870/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. L.Shibi, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 14Section 32Section 32(1)

…65 quoted by the High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kottayam Vs Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd., [2018] 91 taxmann.com 14? 2. Whether The CIT(A) is right in relying on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Premier Industries Limited Vs CIT 323 ITR 672 in the light of the Honourable Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Liquidators of Pursa Ltd., Vs CIT [1954125 ITR 265 where it was held that the machinery had to be used during the accounting year for claiming depreciation? This decision of the Supreme Court is now reiterated by the High Court of Kerala in the recent judgment in the case of C…

ITO Ward 1, Puducherry vs. Les Ateliers Pondicherry (P) Ltd., Pondicherry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 1869/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. L.Shibi, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 14Section 32Section 32(1)

…65 quoted by the High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kottayam Vs Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd., [2018] 91 taxmann.com 14? 2. Whether The CIT(A) is right in relying on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Premier Industries Limited Vs CIT 323 ITR 672 in the light of the Honourable Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Liquidators of Pursa Ltd., Vs CIT [1954125 ITR 265 where it was held that the machinery had to be used during the accounting year for claiming depreciation? This decision of the Supreme Court is now reiterated by the High Court of Kerala in the recent judgment in the case of C…

Les Ateliers De Pondicherry Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Ward 1, Puducherry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 1508/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. L.Shibi, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 14Section 32Section 32(1)

…65 quoted by the High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kottayam Vs Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd., [2018] 91 taxmann.com 14? 2. Whether The CIT(A) is right in relying on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Premier Industries Limited Vs CIT 323 ITR 672 in the light of the Honourable Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Liquidators of Pursa Ltd., Vs CIT [1954125 ITR 265 where it was held that the machinery had to be used during the accounting year for claiming depreciation? This decision of the Supreme Court is now reiterated by the High Court of Kerala in the recent judgment in the case of C…

M/S Les Ateliers De Pondicherry Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Ward 1, Puducherry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 1483/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. L.Shibi, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 14Section 32Section 32(1)

…65 quoted by the High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kottayam Vs Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd., [2018] 91 taxmann.com 14? 2. Whether The CIT(A) is right in relying on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Premier Industries Limited Vs CIT 323 ITR 672 in the light of the Honourable Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Liquidators of Pursa Ltd., Vs CIT [1954125 ITR 265 where it was held that the machinery had to be used during the accounting year for claiming depreciation? This decision of the Supreme Court is now reiterated by the High Court of Kerala in the recent judgment in the case of C…

M/S Mantri Developers Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 525/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014 – 15 M/S Mantri Developers Private Limited, #41, Mantri House, Dcit Circle – 4 (1) (2), Vittal Malya Road, Vs. Bengaluru Bangalore – 560001 Pan : Aaacg4009N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shree Muzaffar Hussain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit (A) – 4 Bengaluru Dated 30.11.2017. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shree V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shree Muzaffar Hussain, CIT DR
Section 234Section 36

…nts, copy available in case Law Paper Book. (a) CIT vs. Chamundeswari Sugar Limited, 309 ITR 326 (kar.), (b) CIT vs. E. I. H. Ltd., 54 DTR 249 (Cal.), (c) CIT vs. Oswal Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd., 341 ITR 467 (Del.), (d) CIT vs. Premier Industries (India) Ltd., 323 ITR 672 (M. P.) Page 4 of 15 4. At this juncture, this was a query of the bench as to when the building was let out. In reply, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that the building in question was let out as per Lease Deed dated 31.01.2013, copy available on pages 92 to 169 of the paper book. He pointed out that on page 96 of the paper bo…

Sahayak Engineering Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1874/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Sri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…ITA 1874 of 2018 Sahayak Engg P Ltd Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ SMC Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sahayak Engg (P) Ltd Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AACCS8210P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue by: Sri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, DR Date of hearing: 04/06/2020 Date of pronouncement: 11/06/2020 ORDER This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2015-16 against the order of the CIT (A)-3, Hyderabad, dated 20.06.18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company which is eng…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACJ7079D Assessee by : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR Date of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 ORDER Per N.…

Jitendra Nath Patnaik, Keonjhar vs. JCIT, Range-1, Cuttack

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 136/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

…ng depreciation on plant and machinery is, therefore, sustained. 6. Before us, ld A.R. reiterated the submission which were made before the CIT(A). He relied on the decision of Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premier Industries (India) Ltd., 323 ITR 672 (MP), wherein, it was held that depreciation should be allowed if machine was kept ready for use. Ld A.R. also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mr Kamal Sawhney in ITA No.530/2011 order dated 16.11.2011. 7. Ld D.R. supported the orders of lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival submissions, perus…

Escolife It Services (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 713/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri R. M. Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y Shirpa, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)

…r destroyed the assets during the previous year, the assessee has certainly become entitled for depreciation; that the identical issue has also been decided by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the judgement cited as CIT Vs Premier Industries India Ltd. 323 ITR 672; that the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Specialty Foods India Pvt. Ltd. In I.T.A. No. 1460/Del/2008 is not a good law in the face of judgment delivered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case cited as Yamaha Motor India (P) Ltd. (supra), which is otherwise decided on the different set of facts that part of plant and machinery wa…

Premier Industries Limited v. CIT (323 ITR 672) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax