Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT Cirrcle-3 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Skycape Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 6776/मुं/2019("न. व .2014-15) Acit,Circle -3(3), Room No.628, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 005 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Skyscape Developers Pvt.Ltd. Shapoorji Pllonji Centre, 41/44, Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 Pan: Aajcs- 8938-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Tanwani ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Dr. K.Shivram, Sr. Advocate सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/03/2022

…ts earlier stand. The ld.Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions to contend that assessee is eligible for claiming depreciation in respect of asset which is “ready to use” and “not actually used”: (i) Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT, 79 ITR 613(Bom) (ii)CIT vs. Nahar Export Ltd., 296 ITR 419(P&H) (ii)DCIT v. Agile Electric Sub Assembly (P) Ltd. 188 ITD 870(Chennai)(Trib) 3.3 In respect of interest expenses, the ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed that the assessee has only claimed interest expenditure in respect of Block-C. The interest expense was allowed to the assessee in assessment…

Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 3781/Mum/2011 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Pfizer Ltd., Dcit Rg. 8(2), Pfizer Centre, Patel Estate, R. No. 216,-A, Aayakar बिधम/ Off. S. V. Road, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 012 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacp3334M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Co No.46/Mum/2012 आयकरअपील सं./ Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 3781/Mum/2011 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Pfizer Ltd., Pfizer Centre, Patel Estate, Pfizer Centre, Patel Estate, Off. S. V. Road, बिधम/ Off. S. V. Road, Jogeshwari (W), Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 012 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacp3334M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Heliwal, Ld. Dr

…der (supra) has duly examined the contention raised by Ld. DR, which are as under:- 17. This order was upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in ITA No. 598 of 2009 dated 28th July 2009 by following the judgement in the case of Whittle Anderson Ltd. vs. CIT 79 ITR 613 and in the case of CIT vs. G.N. Agarwal (Individual) 217 ITR 250. In view of this, since the assets have become part of the block of assets the assessee is entitled to depreciation. The learned D.R.’s reliance on the decision of CIT vs. McDowell Company Ltd. 224 CTR 22 is not directly applicable here. In the above said case the stand of the Reven…

India Medtronic Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodindia Medtronics Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Of Income-Tax-10(1)(1), Bldg. No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri Room No. 209, Vs. Ghatkopar Link Road, Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai, Mumbai – 400020 Maharashtra- 400093 Pan – Aaaci4227Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri Rajan R. Vora & Nikhil Tiwari, A.Rs Respondent By: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.09.2019

…test of “user” has to be applied on the „block of assets‟ as a whole and not on the individual assets. In fact, the aforesaid view was taken by the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court by following its earlier view taken in viz. (i). White Anderson Vs. CIT (1971)79 ITR 613(Bom); and (ii). CIT Vs. G.N Agrawal (1996) 217 ITR 250(Bom). Accordingly, we are of the considered view, that pursuant to the introduction of the depreciation on the written down value of the „block of asset‟ by the Taxation Laws (amendment and miscellaneous provision) Act, 1986 w.e.f 01.04.1988, depreciation is allowable on the WDV on the „block…

Rohda Specialtiy Chemicals India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 830/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Vs. Addl. Cit – Circle 6(1) India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Room No.511, Aayakar Bhawan M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals Mk Road India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing New Marine Lines 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan : Aaaca3841L Ita No. 622/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) Dcit -7(2) Vs. M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Room No.624, Mk Road India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020 M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

…e 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. C1T 79 ITR 613 and another in the case of CIT Vs. G.N. Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR 250. In this view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law.” No contrary decisions were brought to our notice by the revenue. Hence, following the above decisions, we affirm the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) in allowing depreciation on Ambe…

DCIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 830/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Vs. Addl. Cit – Circle 6(1) India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Room No.511, Aayakar Bhawan M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals Mk Road India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing New Marine Lines 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan : Aaaca3841L Ita No. 622/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) Dcit -7(2) Vs. M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Room No.624, Mk Road India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020 M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

…e 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. C1T 79 ITR 613 and another in the case of CIT Vs. G.N. Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR 250. In this view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law.” No contrary decisions were brought to our notice by the revenue. Hence, following the above decisions, we affirm the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) in allowing depreciation on Ambe…

Cybersol Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 8 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 2749/Mum/2016 : (A.Y : 2012-13) M/S Cybersol Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito 8(1)(2) 524-527, Raheja Metroplex Room No.601-A, 6Th Floor (Ijmima) Aayakar Bhavan Behind Goregaon Sports Club M.K.Road Off Link Road, Malad West Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan : Aabcc3318B (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K Gopal / Ms Neha Pranjape प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Jintendra Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2017 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : /04/2017

…used in the previous A.Y. 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 judgements of this Court one in the case of Whittle Anderson Ltd. Vs. CIT 79 ITR 613 and another in the case of CIT Vs G N Agrawal (Individual) 217 ITR 250. In this view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law. No order as to costs.” 9 M/s Cybersol Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.2749/Mum/2016, A.Y.2012-13. 13. We also find that the Co-ordinate Bench considered this issue in the case of Swati…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Indian Refrigerator Co. Ltd, Aurangabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the Revenues’ appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Arora & Amarjit Singh

…o be actually used, i.e., as the word ‘used’ occurring therein was considered by the Hon’ble Court as denoting, and that a ‘ready to use’ state shall not entitle a claim for depreciation qua the said asset. In the facts of Whittle Anderson Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 613 (Bom), referred to by the Hon’ble Court, the agreement clearly provided two of the four presses which were diverted to the pooling arrangement were to remain idle while the two presses worked; the owners of those presses had to keep them ready for use at any time and the contingency for their use could also, upon the terms of the agreement, arise…

Indian Regrigerator Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the Revenues’ appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Arora & Amarjit Singh

…o be actually used, i.e., as the word ‘used’ occurring therein was considered by the Hon’ble Court as denoting, and that a ‘ready to use’ state shall not entitle a claim for depreciation qua the said asset. In the facts of Whittle Anderson Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 613 (Bom), referred to by the Hon’ble Court, the agreement clearly provided two of the four presses which were diverted to the pooling arrangement were to remain idle while the two presses worked; the owners of those presses had to keep them ready for use at any time and the contingency for their use could also, upon the terms of the agreement, arise…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. G Shoes Exports, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5736/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) G. Shoes Exports Asst. Cit-25(1)/Cit City 25 बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, 1, Hitex Industrial Estate, S. V. Road, Dahisar (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Mumbai-400 068 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfg 5376 P (Assessee) : (Revenue) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6209/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बनाम/ Asst. Cit-25(1), G. Shoes Exports Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 068 Vs. (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Radheshyam Jain : Shri Airiju Jaikaran Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.06.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 16.7.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 20.3.2013. 2

…to be actually used, i.e., as the word ‘used’ occurring therein was considered by the Hon’ble Court as denoting, and that a ‘ready to use’ state shall not entitle a claim or depreciation qua the said asset. In the facts of Whittle Anderson Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 613 (Bom), referred to by the Hon’ble Court, the agreement clearly provided two of the four presses which were diverted in the pooling arrangement were to remain idle while the two presses worked; the owners of those presses had to keep them ready for use at any time and the contingency for their use could also, upon the terms of the agreement, arise…

Tipco Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(3), Mumbai

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,"याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/685/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09, आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/3768/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Asses…