Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)

The Federation Of Andhra Pradesh ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. Etc. ... on 4 August, 2000

9. The Supreme Court in Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chambers of Commerce v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), was interpreting the word "used" occurring in Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Non-Agricultural Lands Assessment Act, 1963. The question in that case was whether the agricultural lands of the Assessee had been used for industrial purposes so as to subject it to levy of 'assessment' . It was held in that context that that "it is only land which is actually in use for an agricultural purpose as defined in the said Act that can be assessed to non-agricultural assessment at the rate specified for land used for industrial purpose." In other words, given the background in which the question arose, the interpretation placed on the word 'used' was in favour of the Assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 107 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

Ntpc Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-V on 16 April, 2014

8. As noted by this Court in a recent decision in National Thermal Power Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2013) 357 ITR 253 (Del), two conditions are necessary to be fulfilled before an allowance by way of depreciation under Section 32 of the Act can be granted to the Assessee. The first is ownership of the asset and the second, the user of the assets for the purposes of the business. The Court on the facts of the said case rejected the stand of the Revenue that the machinery and equipment had to be put to actual use and that it would not be enough if they were "kept ready for use". The Court referred to a large number of decisions of the High Courts which held that the expression "used for the purpose of business" in Section 32 of the Act was interpreted to include a case where the asset is kept ready for use but is not actually put to use.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 481 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1