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.
Whittle Anderson Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 4 December, 1968
These included Whittle
Anderson Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 79 ITR 613 (Bom); CIT v. Yamaha Motor
India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 297 (Del); CIT v. Vayithri Plantations Ltd.
(1981)128 ITR 675 (Mad) and CIT v. Refrigeration and Allied Industries
ITA 346/2002 Page 4 of 6
Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del).
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd. on 19 August, 2009
These included Whittle
Anderson Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 79 ITR 613 (Bom); CIT v. Yamaha Motor
India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 297 (Del); CIT v. Vayithri Plantations Ltd.
(1981)128 ITR 675 (Mad) and CIT v. Refrigeration and Allied Industries
ITA 346/2002 Page 4 of 6
Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil ... vs Vayithri Plantations Ltd. on 9 January, 1980
These included Whittle
Anderson Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 79 ITR 613 (Bom); CIT v. Yamaha Motor
India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 297 (Del); CIT v. Vayithri Plantations Ltd.
(1981)128 ITR 675 (Mad) and CIT v. Refrigeration and Allied Industries
ITA 346/2002 Page 4 of 6
Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del).
Cit, Delhi-Ii, New Delhi vs M/S. Refrigeration & Allied Industries ... on 31 August, 2000
These included Whittle
Anderson Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 79 ITR 613 (Bom); CIT v. Yamaha Motor
India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 297 (Del); CIT v. Vayithri Plantations Ltd.
(1981)128 ITR 675 (Mad) and CIT v. Refrigeration and Allied Industries
ITA 346/2002 Page 4 of 6
Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del).
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
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.
1