Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.31 seconds)Meenakshi Mills, Madurai vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Madras on 26 September, 1956
It is also important to note that the assessee opted not to
claim depreciation for assessment year 2000-01, which was
legally permissible as held by the Supreme Court in the
case of Mahendra Mills v. C.I.T : 243 ITR 56. In the absence
of depreciation having been claimed and actually allowed
by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2000-01, it is
not possible for the Assessing Officer to reduce notional
depreciation that could have been allowable for assessment
year 2000-01 to arrive at written down value of depreciable
asset transferred by way of slump sale, while calculating
the net worth of the undertaking.
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 February, 1997
6.7 The reliance placed by the revenue on the provisions of section
43(6)(c)(C)(b) is misplaced as the same would be applicable to
determine the WDV of remaining block of assets where part of assets
falling in the block are transferred by way of slump sales during the
relevant previous year. This is meant to isolate the WDV of assets
falling in the block which are partly transferred. We are of the
considered opinion that the said sub-section has no application
where the entire asset forming part of the block are sold by way of
15
ITA NO. 5510/DEL/2004
A.Y. 2001-02
slump sale. The assessee applying the option for not claiming
depreciation in the previous assessment year 2000-01 was also legally
permissible on the touch stone of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in
the case of Mahindra Mills vs. C.I.T. 243 ITR 56.