Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.53 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shree Gopikishan Industries Pvt. Ltd. on 11 June, 2003

Shri Soneshware Cold Storage vs Asst. C.I.T.....Opponent(S) on 17 November, 2014

The decision in the case of CIT v. Anand Theatres also has been deliberated by the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Gopikishan Industries Pvt. Ltd., reported in 262 ITR 568. In that view of the matter, the present appeal requires to be allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Hence, this appeal is allowed accordingly.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

Baba Kaluroy Heemgar P Ltd., Hooghly vs Acit, Cir-1, Hooghly, Hooghly on 22 March, 2017

(3) Plant includes ships, vehicle, books scientific apparatus and surgical equipment used for the purpose of the business or profession [but does not include tea bush or livestock] [or building or furniture and fittings] From the above definition of plant it is clear that the building is not a part of the plant. However the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT versus Shri Gopikishan Industries Private Limited reported in 262 ITR 568 (Cal) vided order dated 11.06.2003 has observed that the roofs and walls of the building are constructed and maintained in a particular manner with the purpose to store the store the goods for long time. Therefore the cold storage buildings are insulated.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gujarat Green Revolution Co. Ltd.,, ... vs Assessee on 15 July, 2013

7.3.1 From above exposition it is apparent that the Greenhouses are in the nature of building which features as walls doors, frames gutters, roof, etc,, as in normal building even if it is expected that light or humidity are controlled in a Greenhouse, the features are also available in the smart buildings of today. Further the appellant has not been able to show as to what are the specialized machineries used for ternperature/light/humidity control. If there are such separate machineries they would be eligible for depreciation at higher depreciation but the structure per se would be eligible for depreciation at 10%. The decision cited by the appellant are distinguishable on facts as in the case of Venkateshwara Farms the Hon. ITAT has relied on the report of the technical expert to hold that the potter farm are in the nature of plant. Similarly in the decision in the case CIT v Gopikishan it has been clarified that only that part of the cold storage building which is used and utilized as chamber for storing the goods in cold storage that would be treated as plant and rest of building would not be a plant.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1