Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Dabur India Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 September, 1997

H.K. Finechem Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs Department Of Income Tax on 20 April, 2011

5.1. The next question and the issue as raised through Ground Nos.1 and 3 by the Revenue is significant and arises from the orders of the authorities below. The question is that while computing the deduction u/s.80HHC whether the assessee is at liberty to claim or not to claim the depreciation for the purpose of computing the eligible profit for claim of deduction u/s.80HHC of I.T. Act. Vide Ground No.3 the Revenue has cited a decision of Dabar India Ltd. 219 CTR 152 (Delhi) and agitated that ld.CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the reduction of current year's depreciation from the business profits for the purpose of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act. It has also vehemently pleaded before us that inspite of a mandate given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to work out the income without giving effect to the current year's depreciation. The said decision of Delhi High Court on the issue of allowance of depreciation for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HHC is a landmark decision, wherein it was held that where the assessee seeks to claim a "special ITA Nos.2557&2559/Ahd/09(By Revenue) And ITA No.2487/A/09, CO Nos.212&214/A/09(By Assessee) Asst.Years -2000-01 & 2005-06 -9- deduction" under Chapter VIA, there is no option available to the assessee but to provide for depreciation allowable, while calculating the eligible profits and gains on which deduction is permissible under the provisions specified in Chapter VIA of I.T. Act. From the said decision of Dabar India Ltd. vs. CIT reported at (2008) 219 CTR 152 (Delhi); relevant portions are reproduced below:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nirmala Overseas , New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax on 27 April, 2009

Moreover, the amendment in the Act w.e.f. 1.4.1997, has been deliberated in a number of decision of the Delhi High Court and the Delhi Tribunal and Page 15 of 21 ITA no. 2996/Del/2009 ITA No. 3014/Del/2009 therefore, the exception to the principle of consistency would have to be followed as held in Dabur India Ltd. vs. CIT [2008] 13 ITR (Del); [2008] 219 CTR (Del)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Well Tuff Safety Glass, Daman vs Assessee on 16 March, 2007

4. The assessee is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid findings of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR on behalf of the assessee while relying upon the decision dated 12-04-2010 of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of M/s Khemani Distilleries P. Ltd. in ITA No.2149/Ahd/2007 for the AY 2004-05 and decision dated 26.3.2010 in the case of M/s Siddharth Corporation in ITA no. 866/Ahd./2007 and in the case of M/s Gautam Enterprises in ITA No.867/Ahd/2007 for the AY 2003-04, contended that the AO can not work out W DV of the assets in the year under consideration after allowing notional depreciation for the AY 2001-02.The learned DR, on the other hand, while relying upon decision dated 1.9.2008 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dabur India Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA no.579/2007 supported the findings of the ld. CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1