Dhondiram Dalichand vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Poona on 14 April, 1970
• Dhondiram Dalichand v. CIT (81 ITR 609)(Bom.)
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)Orissa Fisheries Development ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 20 September, 1974
• Orissa Fisheries Development Corporation v. CIT (111 ITR 923) (Orissa)
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs A. Krishnaswami Mudaliar And Others on 16 April, 1964
"4.3 I have considered the submissions of the appellant, order of the AO and
facts of the case carefully. It is noticed that during the assessment
proceedings, the AO has given number of opportunities to the assessee to
submit complete details but only partial details were submitted. Secondly, the
special auditors has raised the objection that books of accounts, bills and
vouchers were not maintained properly. In view of these facts, the AO has
given an opportunity to the assessee to explain why the books of accounts
may not be rejected as per the provisions of section 145(2) of the IT. Act.
After considering the reply cf the appellant, the AO has rejected the books
of account because these were not giving correct result to determine the
profit for the year under consideration. To strengthen the view of the AO,
reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
CIT vs. A. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar 53 ITR 122 wherein it is held that
sec. 145 does not compel the ITO to accept in all cases the balance-sheet of
cash receipts and outgoing prepared from the books of account.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Mcmillan & Co on 16 October, 1957
Similarly, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. McMillan & Co. 33 ITR 182
has also held that the ITO even when he accepts assessee's method of
accounting is not bound by the figure of profit shown in the accounts. Keeping
in view the facts and circumstances of the case and decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it is held that the AO has noticed specific mistakes in the
16
Eskay Knit (I) Ltd
books of accounts which has not given a correct profit for the year under
consideration. Therefore, he has rightly invoked the provisions of sec. 145(2)
of the IT. Act and has rightly rejected the bb~6l<s of accounts. Thus, the,
decision of the AO is upheld and ground of appeal is dismissed."
Sumati Dayal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 28 March, 1995
In this
regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of CIT vs Durgaprasad Moore 82 ITR 540 SC) and Sumati Dayal vs CIT
(1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC).
Commisioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. on 24 December, 2010
26. We have heard both the parties and perused material available on
record. The AO has denied depreciation on texturised unit only on the
37
Eskay Knit (I) Ltd
ground that the unit has not functioned during the year and such finding
is based on the fact that there was no sale / income from this unit.
Except this, the AO has not brought out any other facts to deny
depreciation claimed on assets which were put to use for the purpose of
business in the earlier year. The provisions of section 32(1) is very clear
inasmuch as once the asset is put to use, then whether the same has
been used in the year under consideration or not is irrelevant for the
purpose of claiming depreciation. This position has been clarified by
various courts including Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs
Oswal Agro Mills Ltd (2012) 341 ITR 467 (Del) where it was held that
depreciation is allowed on block of asset and the revenue cannot
segregate a particular asset therefrom on the ground that it was not put
to use. In this case, on perusal of facts it is clear that the texturised unit
is part of the textile plant of the assessee and the unit was functioning in
the earlier years. Therefore, we are of the considered view that once a
particular machinery has been put to use for the purpose of business, it
is immaterial whether such plant & machinery has been used in the year
under consideration and any revenue has been generated from such
unit. The expression used "for the purpose of business" includes user of
assets in the earlier years. Once, the machinery was available for use,
though not actually used, falls within the expression used "for the
purpose of business of the assessee" and claim the benefit of
38
Eskay Knit (I) Ltd
depreciation. The lower authorities without appreciating the fact,
disallowed depreciation claimed on texturised unit, hence, we direct the
AO to delete addition made towards depreciation claimed on texturised
unit.
Section 145 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1