Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.29 seconds)
Eastman Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 9 June, 2017 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. (No. 1) on 13 January, 1989

(d) CIT vs. LH Sugar Factories and Oils Mills Pvt. Ltd.123 ITR 596 (All) On going through the case of CIT vs. Indian Aluminum Cables of the jurisdictional High Court it is seen that the case is similar to the facts of the case under consideration. In the case referred to above there was a finding of the fact that the bank from which the assessee company had borrowed funds insisted on personal guarantee of the Directors and as such the assessee had no choice but to give the guarantee. In the case under consideration even the appellant has claimed that guarantee of Directors was insisted upon by the bankers for sanctioning of credit limits. In support of its contention, the appellant has filed renewal of credit limits under SBI Exporters Gold card Scheme in the paper book, which is placed at page 16 to 41 of the paper book. Ongoing through the letter it is seen that bank has insisted upon the personal guarantee of the Directors of the appellant company Sh. J.R. Singal and Smt. Darshana. Therefore, it is established that bank has insisted upon the personal guarantee of the Directors for renewal of the credit limits.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Orient Ceramics & Inds. Ltd. on 20 January, 2011

16. Having considered the rival submissions in the light of material available on record, we find no justification to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. The ld. CIT(A) has noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee had purchased new UPS systems and data drive of Rs.50,824/- to be used with computers. Out of aforesaid UPS and data drive aggregating to Rs.29,692/- were put to use for more than 180 days and the remaining UPS system and data drive aggregating to Rs.21,132/- were put to use for less than 180 days. There is no dispute on this fact. There is also no contrary material from the side of Revenue that these equipments are used along with the computers and thus, constitutes integral part of computer system. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd. (supra) have clearly held that UPS and Data drive are to be treated as part and parcel of the computer system and depreciation has to be allowed at higher rate as applicable to the computer @ 60%. Accordingly, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) ITA Nos. 285 & 45/Del./2013 14 on this count. Ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 69 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bses Yamuna Powers Lld. on 31 August, 2010

16. Having considered the rival submissions in the light of material available on record, we find no justification to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. The ld. CIT(A) has noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee had purchased new UPS systems and data drive of Rs.50,824/- to be used with computers. Out of aforesaid UPS and data drive aggregating to Rs.29,692/- were put to use for more than 180 days and the remaining UPS system and data drive aggregating to Rs.21,132/- were put to use for less than 180 days. There is no dispute on this fact. There is also no contrary material from the side of Revenue that these equipments are used along with the computers and thus, constitutes integral part of computer system. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd. (supra) have clearly held that UPS and Data drive are to be treated as part and parcel of the computer system and depreciation has to be allowed at higher rate as applicable to the computer @ 60%. Accordingly, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) ITA Nos. 285 & 45/Del./2013 14 on this count. Ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 65 - Manmohan - Full Document
1   2 Next