Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing Sri Ashok Kumar Agarwal Son Of Sri Mool ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 February, 2007

Ahmedabad Bengal Roadways , New Delhi vs Assessee on 9 July, 2007

Besides, so far use as an office is concerned, user of the same need not be full-fledged and nor is it so urged by the revenue. Obviously, the assessee must have purchased this flat within the relevant financial year to take benefit of depreciation as tax planning. We do not see any illegality in the action of the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case. The counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the 10 ITA Nos. 4825(Del)/2009 & 880(Del)/2010 judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Gulab Chand Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 267 ITR 768.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax -V vs Panacea Biotech Ltd. on 27 July, 2009

Besides, so far use as an office is concerned, user of the same need not be full-fledged and nor is it so urged by the Revenue. Obviously, the assessee must have purchased this flat within the relevant financial year to take benefit of depreciation as tax planning. We do not see any illegality in the action of the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case. The counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Gulab Chand Aggarwal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 267 ITR 768.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 6 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Derby Textiles Limited , Jodhpur vs Assessee on 15 March, 2016

At the outset, it 3 ITA Nos. 136 & 137/JODH/2015 would be pertinent to emphasis that section 32 of the Act in respect of Depreciation mandatory usages as primary imperative so as to initiate the applicability of machinery of this section. This concept of „actual usage‟ has also been deliberated upon by various High courts stipulating the usage factor and have laid emphasis on the fact that for claiming the depreciation, asset must be used during the accounting year. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dinesh Chand Gulab Chand Agarwal vs. CIT, reported in 267 ITR 768 held that the word "used" denotes actually used and not merely ready for use. The expression "used" means for the purpose of the business.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sbl Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax on 22 August, 2008

2. The Assessing Officer observed that the business of the assessee has gone through a substantial downfall which is reflected by the sale turnover and has decreased from Rs.8,32,92,504 to Rs.6,69,54,450. The scrap generated from 289 tons as against 535 tons in finished products in financial year 2005-06 and the inspector's report stating that most of the machines were not in use and that only one unit was in progress only in which poly-printing for the company M/s Procter & Gamble Ltd., Goa under the brand name Whisper was going on. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of the assessee in absence of use of the plant and machinery by following the decisions in the case of Dinesh Kumar Gulab Chand Aggarwal vs. CIT (2004) 267 ITR 768; CIT vs. Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. (1994) 2006 ITR 682 and 76 Taxman 240 (Cal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mool Chand Yaav, Delhi vs Pr. Cit, Ghaziabad on 29 January, 2018

2. Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee requested that this appeal may be allowed to be withdrawn for the reason that relief claimed in present appeal has become academic as other appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal against order passed u/s 143(3)/263 in consequence to revision order has already been fully allowed in ITA 6609/Del/2017 so ITA No. 830/DEL/2016 Shri Mool Chand Yadav vs. Pr.CIT present appeal has become infructuous. Hence the present appeal remains only of academic nature. Therefore, the appellant wants to withdraw the appeal. Ld. DR has no objection for withdrawing of the appeal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1