Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 80 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Hi Tech Arai Limited on 1 September, 2009

Natesan Precision Components (P) Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 4 December, 2012

6. We have heard both the sides, perused the records and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the assessee is eligible : 7: ITA Nos. 1735,1737 & 1736/Mds/2012 for additional depreciation or not. The learned CIT(Appeals) by following the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd. (supra) and CIT v. Texmo Precision Castings (supra) has held that the assessee is eligible for the additional depreciation. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned CIT(Appeals). Accordingly we confirm his order and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of ... vs M/S. Giriraj Enterprises,, Ahmednagar on 23 February, 2017

"6. The facts in the present case are no different from the above-said decision. In the present case, the core business of the assessee is manufacturing and export of textile goods. During the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee had entered into the business of generation of power and installed one windmill. The assessee maintained separate books of account for export division and the windmill division. Since the claim of additional depreciation has to be seen in the context of generation of power through windmill only and the production of textile and its export has nothing to do with the generation of power for the purpose of considering additional depreciation. Further as rightly held by the Tribunal, the Revenue has not brought in any new or contra material to differ from the view of this Court in the decision reported in [2010] 321 ITR 477 (Mad) (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd.).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 46 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Atlas Export Enterprise on 17 March, 2015

6. The facts in the present case are no different from the above-said decision. In the present case, the core business of the assessee is manufacturing and export of textile goods. During the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee had entered into the business of generation of power and installed one wind mill. The assessee maintained separate books of accounts for export division and the wind mill division. Since the assessee has treated the windmill division as separate business, the claim of additional depreciation has to be seen in the context of generation of power through windmill only and the production of textiles and its export has nothing to do with the generation of power for the purpose of considering additional depreciation. Further as rightly held by the Tribunal, the Revenue has not brought in any new or contra material to differ from the view of this Court in the decision reported in [2010] 321 ITR 477 (Mad) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. HI TECH ARAI LTD.).
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle-1(2), ... on 1 February, 2023

m) In the case of CIT vs. Hi-Tech Arai Limited (321 ITR 477), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that there is no merit in argument that the Tribunal should blindly follow its own earlier decision even if such earlier decision did not reflect the correct position of the law. Thus where the Tribunal by the impugned order had applied section 32(1)(iia ) to the facts involved in the case of the assessee and had found that the assessee was entitled for the additional depreciation claimed under the said provision, it could not be held that simply because a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal had earlier taken a different view, the Tribunal on this occasion also ought to have followed the same, especially when it was found that the Tribunal had applied the law correctly in the impugned order. In 34 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 view of binding precedent in case of Sophia Study Circle, it is humbly requested that this legal issue raised by the assessee needs to rejected and dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Diamines & Chemicals Ltd.,, Baroda vs Department Of Income Tax

8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The dispute in the present case is whether the assessee is entitled to I T A No . 4 09 / Ah d /2 0 13 A . Y. 0 7- 0 8 Page 5 claim of additional depreciation of wind electric generator. It is the undisputed fact that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of speciality chemicals and also generation of wind power. The date of installation of wind power generator is not in dispute. The A.O. has disallowed the claim of additional depreciation for the reason that the wind power generator does not result into the manufacture or production of article or thing. Before us, the assessee relied upon the decision of CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd. (supra) and also placed on record the copy of the decision. On perusal of the aforesaid decision, we find that the question before the Hon'ble High Court was whether the assessee was entitled to additional depreciation on purchase of wind mills even though the main business of the assessee was not producing or generating of electricity. The Hon'ble Madras High Court has decided in favour of assessee by holding as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri.S.Srinivasaraghavan vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 4 April, 2022

6. The facts in the present case are no different from the above said decision. In the present case, the core business of the assessee is manufacturing and export of textile goods. During the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee had entered into the business of generation of power and installed one wind mill. The assessee maintained separate books of accounts for export division and the wind mill division. Since the assessee has treated the windmill division as separate business, the claim of additional depreciation has to be seen in the context of generation of power through windmill only and the production of textiles and its export has nothing to do with the generation of power for the purpose of considering additional depreciation. Further as rightly held by the Tribunal, the Revenue has not brought in any new or contra material to differ from the view of this Court in the decision reported in [2010] 321 ITR 477 (Mad) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. HI TECH ARAI LTD.).”
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next