Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mahalinga Setty And Co. on 11 March, 1991

Income Tax Officer vs Ghuge & Co. on 23 October, 1992

On the other hand, the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahalinga Shetty & Co. (supra) had not only considered the user of the dumpers and tippers for the purpose of business of construction, but also the relevant question whether they could be considered as road transport vehicles and came to the conclusion that the phrase "road transport vehicles" would not include dumpers and tippers which are directly used in the activity of business at the place where the business is actually carried on because dumpers and tippers are essentially machinery used to carry on construction work, namely, lifting of earth and transporting the same which helped to produce article or thing and, therefore, such machinery is entitled to investment allowance under S. 32A. The case laws marshalled by the learned counsel for the assessee all go to support the claim of the assessee for investment allowance and additional depreciation and therefore, we uphold the decision of the CIT(A) on this point.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Birla Jute And Industries Ltd. ... on 17 January, 2003

31. Sub-section (2) of Section 32A in Clause (b) of Sub-clause (iii) used the expression "for the purposes of business of construction or manufacturing or production of any article or thing" except those specified in the list in Eleventh Schedule, while defining the meaning of the word "plant". There also the construction manufacturing production is preceded by the expression for the purpose of the business. Therefore, it is not the manufacture with which it is to be concerned. It is for the production of the thing and purpose of business related to a production or manufacturing of a thing. It includes everything except those excluded in the list provided in the Eleventh Schedule. Articles, which do not come within the excluded article provided in the Eleventh Schedule would be the subject matter of provision under Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 32A of the Act. Therefore, this provision also does not say anything that the plant must be related directly to the manufacturing purpose. The plant must be related to the business, which may be a business of manufacturing or production as the case may be. It is so held in the decision in Mahalinga Setty and Co.'s case [1992] 195 ITR 526 (Karn) and CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd, .
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 13 - D K Seth - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hotel Ayodya on 4 November, 1992

In the said Shankar Construction Co.'s case , the Bench had given a broad meaning to the phrase "industrial undertaking". It was held therein, in connection with section 32A of the Act, that investment allowance can be claimed by an "industrial undertaking", the expression "industrial undertaking" has not been defined in the Income-tax Act and that, "industry" is a term of wide import. Where there is (i) systematic activity; (ii) organised by co-operation between employer and employee; (iii) for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes, prima facie there is an industry. This court applied the decision of the Supreme Court, which was actively considering the definition of the term "industry" found in the Industrial Disputes Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Date Of Decision: February 2 vs Rakesh Jain on 21 February, 2012

Insofar as Tippers are concerned, a Division Bench of the Karntaka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahalinga Setty & Co. (1992) 195 ITR 526 (KAR) has opined against the revenue by giving the benefit of investment allowance to the assessee . If that be so then Vibrator and the Vibrator Soil Compactor would follow the suit because the reasoning adopted is that the vehicles are registered under the 1998 Act and it is essential machinery to carry on the construction work. The view of the Karnataka High Court is discernible from following para of the judgment which reads as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Singh - Full Document

D.C.I.T Cir - 1,Kolata, Kolkata vs M/S Parijat Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata on 19 February, 2018

"3. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and carefully perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 30% on dumper and tipper. In earlier two assessment years the assessee also claimed depreciation @ 30% which was not allowed by the Revenue Authority. Based on the same facts and circumstances, the AO disallowed 15% excess depreciation in this year. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who directed the AO to allow depreciation @ 30% on dumper and tipper by following various judgments of Hon'ble Gujarat ITA No.2241-42/Kol/2013 A/Ys 08-09 & 09-10 DCIT Cir-1, Kol. Vs. M/s Parajit Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 High Court and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Aggrieved, revenue is now in appeal before us. We note that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court the case of CIT Vs. Mahaling Setty & Co. (1992) 195 ITR 526 (Kar) , wherein the Hon'bIe High Court has held as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next