← All Phrases

“opening WDV”

DepreciationSection 43(6)Section 43(6)263 judgments

The decision most relied on for opening WDV is ACIT v. Progressive Constructions Ltd. (92 Taxmann.com 104), cited in 63 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on opening WDV

ACIT v. Progressive Constructions Ltd.
92 Taxmann.com 104 · 2018 · ITAT
63
citing judgments

Rights acquired under a concession agreement for highway construction, which generate revenue through toll collections, constitute an 'intangible asset' under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, eligible for depreciation, typically at 25%. This includes claiming depreciation on the opening Written Down Value (WDV) for such highway projects.

CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co.
227 ITR 260 · 1997 · Supreme Court
36
citing judgments

In a slump sale, the slump purchase price cannot be apportioned among individual assets for claiming depreciation, as there is no indication of the price attributable to specific assets out of the total sale consideration.

DCIT v. Toyo Engineering India ltd.
33 Taxmann.com 560 · 2013 · Reported
22
citing judgments

Depreciation is not allowed on goodwill if it arises from book entries and has no identifiable cost of acquisition. This applies even when goodwill is acquired as part of a scheme of arrangement or amalgamation.

Bodal Chemicals Ltd. v. ACIT, Ahmedabad
112 Taxmann.com 217 · 2019 · ITAT
16
citing judgments

Once depreciation on an asset is allowed in the first year, the revenue is debarred from denying depreciation on the written-down value carried forward in subsequent years, absent a change in facts or law.

PCIT v. GVK Jaipur Expressway
100 Taxmann.com 96 · 2018 · Supreme Court
13
citing judgments

The Supreme Court has affirmed that developers of roadways, operating on a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis, are eligible to claim depreciation on the roads constructed. This decision supports the assessee's claim against the Revenue's challenge.

Judgments citing opening WDV

Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 7712/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

held as under: - “15. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. It evident, assessee's claim of depreciation on the opening WDV of block of assets has been disallowed simply for the reason that similar claim made by the assessee in preceding assessment years has been disallowed

Sanofi India Ltd Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6626/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

held as under: - “15. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. It evident, assessee's claim of depreciation on the opening WDV of block of assets has been disallowed simply for the reason that similar claim made by the assessee in preceding assessment years has been disallowed

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1020/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K R Vasudevan &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs.37,43,081/- as depreciation on 'goodwill' at the rate of 25% on the opening WDV of goodwill. The Assessee had acquired the brewery 'Karnataka Breweries and Distilleries Limited' through a process of demerger and acquisition at cost of Rs.180.52

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1019/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K R Vasudevan & Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs.37,43,081/- as depreciation on 'goodwill' at the rate of 25% on the opening WDV of goodwill. The Assessee had acquired the brewery 'Karnataka Breweries and Distilleries Limited' through a process of demerger and acquisition at cost of Rs.180.52

Viral Industries, Ghatkopar East vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2401/MUM/2023[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80I

same and the machines forming part of block of plant & machinery in the financial year 2011-12. Further, the Assessee had shown the opening WDV of the block of plant & machinery at Rs.23,13,147. As per the mandate of the provisions of section 80IB, the Assessee was supposed

Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd (Formerly Knwon As Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (As Ultimate Successor to Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai

ITA 5091/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R
Section 28Section 40Section 45

Appellant prays that the A.O. be directed to delete aforesaid addition made on account of depreciation. GROUND VIII: Disallowance of depreciation on opening WDV of computer software: Rs.26 ,23,012/- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the action ... disallowing depreciation on opening WDV of computers of Rs. 26 ,23,012/ on the basis of the order of the CIT (A) for A.Y. 2004-05. ITA No.3706/M/2010 & 6 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Limited (Earlier known as Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.) 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held

Piramal Healthcare Ltd ( Earlier Knownas Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 3706/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R
Section 28Section 40Section 45

Appellant prays that the A.O. be directed to delete aforesaid addition made on account of depreciation. GROUND VIII: Disallowance of depreciation on opening WDV of computer software: Rs.26 ,23,012/- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the action ... disallowing depreciation on opening WDV of computers of Rs. 26 ,23,012/ on the basis of the order of the CIT (A) for A.Y. 2004-05. ITA No.3706/M/2010 & 6 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Limited (Earlier known as Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.) 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held

Technoforce Solutions (I) Private Limited, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1381/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technoforce Solutions (I) Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik. Private Limited, D-33/35, Midc Industrial Area, Ambad, Nashik- 422010. Pan : Aabct5257C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dilip Bapat & Shri Milind Modak Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 16.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Has Erred In Not Entertaining The Claim Of The Appellant For Deduction Of Service Tax Of Rs 40,82,852 Under Section 37 Of The Income Tax Act On The Ground That The Said Claim Was Not Made In The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Bapat &For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 37

comes up for consideration before us is whether the fact that the assessee company itself had reduced the WDV of the assets from the opening WDV of block of assets in the return of income, can be a bar to claim the higher depreciation during the course of assessment proceedings

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

ITA 2446/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

left behind and not utilized in AY 2003-04 INR 52,43,452 Depreciation claim for AY 2003-04 @ 25% INR 13,10,863 Opening WDV for the AY 2004-05 as per Assessee INR 39,32,589 Depreciation claimed by Assessee ... asset. Depreciation for that year will be calculated on written down value in accordance with section 43(6) of the Act by the increase opening WDV by the actual cost of any asset falling within that block, acquired during the previous year. Once an asset is included in the block

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

ITA 1735/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

left behind and not utilized in AY 2003-04 INR 52,43,452 Depreciation claim for AY 2003-04 @ 25% INR 13,10,863 Opening WDV for the AY 2004-05 as per Assessee INR 39,32,589 Depreciation claimed by Assessee ... asset. Depreciation for that year will be calculated on written down value in accordance with section 43(6) of the Act by the increase opening WDV by the actual cost of any asset falling within that block, acquired during the previous year. Once an asset is included in the block

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

ITA 3566/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

left behind and not utilized in AY 2003-04 INR 52,43,452 Depreciation claim for AY 2003-04 @ 25% INR 13,10,863 Opening WDV for the AY 2004-05 as per Assessee INR 39,32,589 Depreciation claimed by Assessee ... asset. Depreciation for that year will be calculated on written down value in accordance with section 43(6) of the Act by the increase opening WDV by the actual cost of any asset falling within that block, acquired during the previous year. Once an asset is included in the block

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

ITA 3518/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

left behind and not utilized in AY 2003-04 INR 52,43,452 Depreciation claim for AY 2003-04 @ 25% INR 13,10,863 Opening WDV for the AY 2004-05 as per Assessee INR 39,32,589 Depreciation claimed by Assessee ... asset. Depreciation for that year will be calculated on written down value in accordance with section 43(6) of the Act by the increase opening WDV by the actual cost of any asset falling within that block, acquired during the previous year. Once an asset is included in the block

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

ITA 2277/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

left behind and not utilized in AY 2003-04 INR 52,43,452 Depreciation claim for AY 2003-04 @ 25% INR 13,10,863 Opening WDV for the AY 2004-05 as per Assessee INR 39,32,589 Depreciation claimed by Assessee ... asset. Depreciation for that year will be calculated on written down value in accordance with section 43(6) of the Act by the increase opening WDV by the actual cost of any asset falling within that block, acquired during the previous year. Once an asset is included in the block

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

ITA 2167/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

left behind and not utilized in AY 2003-04 INR 52,43,452 Depreciation claim for AY 2003-04 @ 25% INR 13,10,863 Opening WDV for the AY 2004-05 as per Assessee INR 39,32,589 Depreciation claimed by Assessee ... asset. Depreciation for that year will be calculated on written down value in accordance with section 43(6) of the Act by the increase opening WDV by the actual cost of any asset falling within that block, acquired during the previous year. Once an asset is included in the block

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 6589/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(9)Section 80HSection 92C

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming partial disallowance of depreciation, by reducing opening WDV of various block of assets relating to transfer of manufacturing unit at Bangalore. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Chipsan Aviation Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Spl Range-2, New Delhi

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3219/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Making Addition U/S 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Pertaining To Takeover Of Asset By The Appellant Company & Made Addition Of Rs.1,30,10,398/- As Unexplained Investment, Which Is Against The Principle Of Natural Justice, Illegal & Bad In Law.

Section 143(2)Section 69

which reflects that the assessee had made an addition to its fixed assets costing at Rs.35,75,000/- on account of land and building opening WDV of which is 33,96,250/- and building of Rs.24,53,783/- acquired during the year. The assessee was asked to furnish the evidence

M/S Sanofi India Ltd (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1606/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

held as under: - “15. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. It evident, assessee's claim of depreciation on the opening WDV of block of assets has been disallowed simply for the reason that similar claim made by the assessee in preceding assessment years has been disallowed

ACIT- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mm/S Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

held as under: - “15. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. It evident, assessee's claim of depreciation on the opening WDV of block of assets has been disallowed simply for the reason that similar claim made by the assessee in preceding assessment years has been disallowed

DCIT- 3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2588/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

Disallowance of Depreciation on goods (steel) purchased 3. Erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation of Rs 2,37,478/- opening WDV of capitalized value of goods purchased from P.K. Agarwal concerns viz (Durga Iron & Steel Ltd. and Surajbhan Rajkumar Pvt. Ltd. in AY 2003-04. The appellant submits that ... Disallowance of Depreciation on goods (steel) purchased 3. Erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation of Rs 2,37,478/- opening WDV of capitalized value of goods purchased from P.K. Agarwal concerns viz (Durga Iron & Steel Ltd. and Surajbhan Rajkumar Pvt. L AY 2003-04. The appellant submits that

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2587/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

Disallowance of Depreciation on goods (steel) purchased 3. Erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation of Rs 2,37,478/- opening WDV of capitalized value of goods purchased from P.K. Agarwal concerns viz (Durga Iron & Steel Ltd. and Surajbhan Rajkumar Pvt. Ltd. in AY 2003-04. The appellant submits that ... Disallowance of Depreciation on goods (steel) purchased 3. Erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation of Rs 2,37,478/- opening WDV of capitalized value of goods purchased from P.K. Agarwal concerns viz (Durga Iron & Steel Ltd. and Surajbhan Rajkumar Pvt. L AY 2003-04. The appellant submits that