Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.28 seconds)
Meghmani Energy Limited, Ahmedabad vs Dcit, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad on 31 May, 2022 cites

Meghmani Organics Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs The Dcit.,Cent.Circle-1(1),, ... on 28 July, 2020

In our view, respectfully following the decisions of jurisdictional High Courts cited above and the decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Dwarka Cements supra, which has held that merely because there was no manufacturing I.T.A No. 2488/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No. 16 Meghmani Energy Ltd. vs. DCIT activity in relevant previous year, that could not be reason enough to come to conclusion that unabsorbed appreciation of assessee in earlier years was not entitled to be set off against its business income in current year, we are of the considered view that assessee should be allowed set-off of unabsorbed brought forward depreciation and business loss during the year.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 55 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Commisioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. on 24 December, 2010

Further, the appellant has relied on CIT vs. Shahbad Coop, Sugar Mills Ltd (supra) and DCIT vs. Gujarat Mineral Development Corp, Ltd (supra), in support of it's contention that 'Use' has broad meaning and even if the Plant is ready for use, depreciation has to be allowed, Again the reliance by appellant on these case laws is misplaced since in the present case it is not a case of the Plant being ready for use' since in the present case as per appellant's own submission during the year under consideration the appellant company was under the process of winding-up. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant submitted a letter dated 17/01/2017 from office of the Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs to the effect that the appellant company is dissolved. Thus effectively, no business has been carried out by the appellant company during the year under consideration and in the subsequent years till it was dissolved on 17/01/2017. Therefore, there was no question of depreciation being allowed on the ground of Plant and Machinery being 'ready to use'. In view of this discussion, it is held that the AO was justified in disallowing the aaddition of Rs, 1,71,24,757/. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is rejected."
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 72 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs The Shahbad Coop. Sugar Mill Ltd on 21 February, 2010

Further, the appellant has relied on CIT vs. Shahbad Coop, Sugar Mills Ltd (supra) and DCIT vs. Gujarat Mineral Development Corp, Ltd (supra), in support of it's contention that 'Use' has broad meaning and even if the Plant is ready for use, depreciation has to be allowed, Again the reliance by appellant on these case laws is misplaced since in the present case it is not a case of the Plant being ready for use' since in the present case as per appellant's own submission during the year under consideration the appellant company was under the process of winding-up. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant submitted a letter dated 17/01/2017 from office of the Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs to the effect that the appellant company is dissolved. Thus effectively, no business has been carried out by the appellant company during the year under consideration and in the subsequent years till it was dissolved on 17/01/2017. Therefore, there was no question of depreciation being allowed on the ground of Plant and Machinery being 'ready to use'. In view of this discussion, it is held that the AO was justified in disallowing the aaddition of Rs, 1,71,24,757/. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is rejected."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Gujarat Mineral Development ... vs The Cit(A), A'Bad-2,, Ahmedabad on 6 June, 2019

Further, the appellant has relied on CIT vs. Shahbad Coop, Sugar Mills Ltd (supra) and DCIT vs. Gujarat Mineral Development Corp, Ltd (supra), in support of it's contention that 'Use' has broad meaning and even if the Plant is ready for use, depreciation has to be allowed, Again the reliance by appellant on these case laws is misplaced since in the present case it is not a case of the Plant being ready for use' since in the present case as per appellant's own submission during the year under consideration the appellant company was under the process of winding-up. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant submitted a letter dated 17/01/2017 from office of the Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs to the effect that the appellant company is dissolved. Thus effectively, no business has been carried out by the appellant company during the year under consideration and in the subsequent years till it was dissolved on 17/01/2017. Therefore, there was no question of depreciation being allowed on the ground of Plant and Machinery being 'ready to use'. In view of this discussion, it is held that the AO was justified in disallowing the aaddition of Rs, 1,71,24,757/. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is rejected."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bio-Tech Vision Care Pvt. Ltd.,, ... vs The Dy.Cit, (Osd), Range-1,, Ahmedabad on 18 April, 2018

7.5 In the case of DCIT v. Coromandal Bio Tech Industries (I) Ltd. [2012] 20 taxmann.com 520 (Hyd.) the facts were that the assessee- company was incorporated on 12-3-1992 to carry on the business of acqua farms and shrimp farming. The assessee's name was subsequently changed in 1997 and it entered the business of handling transportation. For the relevant assessment years, the assessee filed its returns claiming depreciation on ponds and plant and machinery which business was discontinued long back. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's claim holding that for claiming depreciation, the assessee should not only own the assets, but also the assets should be put to use in the relevant assessment year. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), however, allowed the assessee's claim.On revenue's appeal, ITTA held that in order to allow claim for depreciation, use of individual asset for purpose of business can be examined only in first year of purchase and, in subsequent years when use of block of assets is to be examined, existence of individual asset in block of assets itself amounts to use for purpose of business.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 40 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

M/S. Hindusthan Engineering & ... vs Dcit, Cc - 1(4), Kolkata, Kolkata on 24 January, 2018

Meghmani Energy Ltd. vs. DCIT 7.6 In Hindustan Engineering & Industries Ltd. v. DCIT [2018] 90 taxmann.com 230 (Kolkata - Trib.), ITAT held that where a sick company amalgamated with assessee-company, by operation of law assets of sick company fell in 'Block of assets' of assessee-company and thus even through such assets were non-functional, yet they could not be segregated and depreciation had to be allowed in respect of same.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 73 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Ltu) ... vs M/S Chennai Petroleum Corp. Ltd(Pan ... on 7 March, 2014

7.8 In CIT v. Chennai Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 332 (Madras), Madras High Court held that where assessee claimed depreciation on plant and Assessing Officer declined depreciation on plea that plant had never been put to use for purposes of business during whole of previous year, since assessee's business was a going concern and plant could not be put to use due to raw material paucity, assessee was entitled to depreciation on plant and machinery.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Deepak Textile Industries Ltd. on 18 August, 1987

9.1 In the case of CIT v Deepak Textile Industries Ltd. [1987] 35 Taxman 92 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward and set off by assessee even though business of textile mills to which such unabsorbed depreciation related had been discontinued by assessee. The Gujarat High Court made the following observations while passing the order:
Gujarat High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 25 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document
1   2 Next