Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
Documents citing Dudheshwarnath Steels P.Ltd, Nvi ... vs Dcit, Circle-24(1), New Delhi on 10 December, 2018

M/S Demarte Industries Ltd., Ludhiana vs Ito, W-5(1), Ludhiana on 9 August, 2019

16. After considering the submissions of both the parties and material available on the record it is notice that this issue has been set aside by ITAT Mumbai 'J' Bench in the aforesaid referred to case and the relevant findings have been given in para 23 of the order dt. 13/01/2017 in the case of M/s JSW Steel Limited, Mumbai Vs. ACIT, Circle 11(5), Bangalore (supra) which read as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Damyanti Mundhra, New Delhi vs Ito Ward-55(5), New Delhi on 21 August, 2019

i) Yuvraj vs. Union of India (2009) 315 ITR 84 (Bom); ii) ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC); iii) Devi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 2017-TIOL-92-HC-MUM-IT; iv) Pranawa Leafin (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 33 taxmann.com 454 (Bombay); v) Acorus Unitech Wireless (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2014) 362 ITR 417 (Del); vi) Amit Polyprints (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 94 taxmann.com 393 (Guj); vii) Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 83 taxmann.com 82 (Guj);
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 35 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. , New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

In the case of Nathani Steels Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (1996) 57 ITD 584 (Bom.), the facts are that the assessee-company, engaged in the business of manufacturing marine containers, established a second unit and claimed depreciation on the buildings as well as machinery and plant installed therein. The AO disallowed the depreciation on the ground that the building, plant and machinery have not been used in the course of actual production, which started in November, 1991 only. The Tribunal did not allow deduction of depreciation in respect of the assets of the new unit by mentioning that the time lag between installation and actual production indicates that the machinery was not ready for use. The plant and machinery was not tested or subjected to trial run which further strengthens the conclusion that the machinery was not used. The argument of the assessee of passive user based on the concept of block of assets was not accepted in view of specific provision of section 32(1) regarding the use of asset for the purpose of business.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anjali Dua,, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

iv) It is submitted that, since the stamp value of authority has been established under the stamp Act then and the statutory provision contained in sec. 50C of the Act refers to stamp valuation authority then in such circumstances it is neither legally nor factually desirable or otherwise permissible to draw interpretation on the basis of the report of the valuation officer in preference to the report of stamp value authority. Reliance in the context is also placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Surana Steels P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 237 ITR 777.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1