Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT

NEW RAMPGREEN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-7(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) New Rampgreen Technologies Ito Ward 7(2)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 126 Centre Gd Ambedkar Marg Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Wadala So,Mumbai-400 031. M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aadcv9341F Appellant Respondent

…n that it is not necessary that the asset received need not be used for whole of year or even if the asset is not used in earlier years, the appellant is entitled for depreciation. Another decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court Whittle Anderson Ltd. Ld. CIT(A) 79 ITR 613 (Bom) was relied on by Ld. AR of the appellant for the proposition that even the “passive” usage of asset entitles an entity for full depreciation. As far as the reopening is concerned, the Ld. AR of the appellant has argued that this audit report was available with the Ld. AO during earlier assessment and reopening the same on this basis, is not…

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( FORMERLY BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT LTU, MUMBAI

…axation) - II v. HSBC Asset Management \nIndia Private Limited [2014] 47 \ntaxmann.com 286 (Bombay) \n \n(b) Commissioner of Income-tax 7 v. Sonic \nBiochem Extractions Private Limited (ITA \nNo. 2088 of 2013) (Bombay) \n \n(c) CIT V. G.N.Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR 250 \n \n57. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the \nAssessing Officer. \n \n58. Considered the submissions and material placed on \nrecord, we observe from the record that identical \nissue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. \n1996-97. While deciding the issue, the Coordinate \nBench of the Tribunal in ITA.No. 2230/Mum/…

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…(International Taxation) - II v. HSBC Asset Management India Private Limited [2014] 47 taxmann.com 286 (Bombay) (b) Commissioner of Income-tax 7 v. Sonic Biochem Extractions Private Limited (ITA No. 2088 of 2013) (Bombay) (c) CIT V. G.N.Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR 250 57. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 58. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 1996-97. While deciding the issue, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA.No. 2230/Mum/2000 dated 20.06.2…

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT. RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

…ax (International Taxation) II v. HSBC Asset Management India Private Limited [2014] 47 taxmann.com 286 (Bombay) (b) Commissioner of Income-tax 7 v. Sonic Biochem Extractions Private Limited (ITA No. 2088 of 2013) (Bombay) (c) CIT V. G.N. Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR 250 57. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 58. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 1996-97. While deciding the issue, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA.No.2230/Mum/2000 dated 20.06.2022…

BAJAJ HOLDNGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( ERSTWHILE BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

…x (International Taxation) - II v. HSBC Asset Management India Private Limited [2014] 47 taxmann.com 286 (Bombay) (b) Commissioner of Income-tax 7 v. Sonic Biochem Extractions Private Limited (ITA No. 2088 of 2013) (Bombay) (c) CIT V. G.N.Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR 250 57. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 58. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 1996-97. While deciding the issue, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA.No. 2230/Mum/2000 dated 20.06.202…

ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

…x (International Taxation) - II v. HSBC Asset Management India Private Limited [2014] 47 taxmann.com 286 (Bombay) (b) Commissioner of Income-tax 7 v. Sonic Biochem Extractions Private Limited (ITA No. 2088 of 2013) (Bombay) (c) CIT V. G.N.Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR 250 57. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 58. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 1996-97. While deciding the issue, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA.No. 2230/Mum/2000 dated 20.06.202…

DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

…x (International Taxation) - II v. HSBC Asset Management India Private Limited [2014] 47 taxmann.com 286 (Bombay) (b) Commissioner of Income-tax 7 v. Sonic Biochem Extractions Private Limited (ITA No. 2088 of 2013) (Bombay) (c) CIT V. G.N.Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR 250 57. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 58. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 1996-97. While deciding the issue, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA.No. 2230/Mum/2000 dated 20.06.202…

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

…x (International Taxation) - II v. HSBC Asset Management India Private Limited [2014] 47 taxmann.com 286 (Bombay) (b) Commissioner of Income-tax 7 v. Sonic Biochem Extractions Private Limited (ITA No. 2088 of 2013) (Bombay) (c) CIT V. G.N.Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR 250 57. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 58. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 1996-97. While deciding the issue, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA.No. 2230/Mum/2000 dated 20.06.202…

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…previous assessment year. According to revenue, depreciation would not be available under section 32 of the Income tax Act. The question sought to be canvassed is squarely covered by two judgments of this Court one in the case of Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT 79 ITR 613 and another in the case of CIT v. G.N. Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR 250. In this view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law." 7.14 In concept of depreciation on block assets one doubt comes to the mind that how depreciation can be allowed on assets which were not used for the purpose of business. The reply…

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGINE & HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…previous assessment year. According to revenue, depreciation would not be available under section 32 of the Income tax Act. The question sought to be canvassed is squarely covered by two judgments of this Court one in the case of Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT 79 ITR 613 and another in the case of CIT v. G.N. Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR 250. In this view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law." 7.14 In concept of depreciation on block assets one doubt comes to the mind that how depreciation can be allowed on assets which were not used for the purpose of business. The reply…

ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGINENE & HEALTH CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…previous assessment year. According to revenue, depreciation would not be available under section 32 of the Income tax Act. The question sought to be canvassed is squarely covered by two judgments of this Court one in the case of Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT 79 ITR 613 and another in the case of CIT v. G.N. Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR 250. In this view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law." 7.14 In concept of depreciation on block assets one doubt comes to the mind that how depreciation can be allowed on assets which were not used for the purpose of business. The reply…

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…previous assessment year. According to revenue, depreciation would not be available under section 32 of the Income tax Act. The question sought to be canvassed is squarely covered by two judgments of this Court one in the case of Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT 79 ITR 613 and another in the case of CIT v. G.N. Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR 250. In this view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law." 7.14 In concept of depreciation on block assets one doubt comes to the mind that how depreciation can be allowed on assets which were not used for the purpose of business. The reply…

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. CIR. 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…previous assessment year. According to revenue, depreciation would not be available under section 32 of the Income tax Act. The question sought to be canvassed is squarely covered by two judgments of this Court one in the case of Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT 79 ITR 613 and another in the case of CIT v. G.N. Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR 250. In this view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law." 7.14 In concept of depreciation on block assets one doubt comes to the mind that how depreciation can be allowed on assets which were not used for the purpose of business. The reply…

ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

…previous assessment year. According to revenue, depreciation would not be available under section 32 of the Income tax Act. The question sought to be canvassed is squarely covered by two judgments of this Court one in the case of Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT 79 ITR 613 and another in the case of CIT v. G.N. Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR 250. In this view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law." 7.14 In concept of depreciation on block assets one doubt comes to the mind that how depreciation can be allowed on assets which were not used for the purpose of business. The reply…

PROCTER & GAMGLE HYGIENE& HEALTHCARE ,LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

…previous assessment year. According to revenue, depreciation would not be available under section 32 of the Income- tax Act. The question sought to be canvassed is squarely covered by two judgments of this Court one in the case of Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT 79 ITR 613 and another in the case of CIT v. G.N. Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR ITA. No. 6591 & 6549/Mum/2010 (AY 2004-05) ITA. No. 2780 & 2849/Mum/2011 (AY 2005-06) 250. In this view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law." 7.14 In concept of depreciation on block assets one doubt comes to the mind that how depreciat…

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTHCARE LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

…previous assessment year. According to revenue, depreciation would not be available under section 32 of the Income- tax Act. The question sought to be canvassed is squarely covered by two judgments of this Court one in the case of Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT 79 ITR 613 and another in the case of CIT v. G.N. Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR ITA. No. 6591 & 6549/Mum/2010 (AY 2004-05) ITA. No. 2780 & 2849/Mum/2011 (AY 2005-06) 250. In this view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law." 7.14 In concept of depreciation on block assets one doubt comes to the mind that how depreciat…

ACIT (LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

…x (International Taxation) - II v. HSBC Asset Management India Private Limited [2014] 47 taxmann.com 286 (Bombay) (b) Commissioner of Income-tax 7 v. Sonic Biochem Extractions Private Limited (ITA No. 2088 of 2013) (Bombay) (c) CIT V. G.N.Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR 250 Page No.| 40 C.O.No. 96/MUM/2002 Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 57. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 58. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 1996-97. While deciding the issue, the Coordinat…

M/S WELL WISHER CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT WARD 18 (1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

…siness / profession’ appears to be completely legit. The assessee would thus be entitled to claim expenses & depreciation under the head ‘business income’ as a matter of course. 10.2 Contextually, the Hon’ble High Court in Whittle Anderson Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 79 ITR 613 (Bom) has 9 I.T.A. No.7605 & 7606/Mum/2019 observed that where the assets owned by the assessee were idle but were kept ready for use at any time and the contingency from use could also fall within the definition of word ‘used’ for the purposes of eligibility of depreciation notwithstanding non-generation of positive income under this head. 10.3…