Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)Section 33 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 32A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 254 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Vinod Bhargava on 19 March, 1987
13. A similar view has been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in the case of CIT v. Vinod Bhargava (1988) 169 ITR 549 (AP)
where Jeevan Reddy, J. (as he then was) held that where leasing of
machinery is a mode of carrying on business by the assessee the
assessee would be entitled to development rebate. The Court observed
(p. 551):
Asst Cit Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs Ihp Finvest Ltd, Mumbai on 11 May, 2017
In Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Apollo Finvest (I) Ltd. 2, the
Division Bench of this Court was dealing with the revenue's appeal on a
question of law, as to whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the
respondent/assessee would be entitled to depreciation on assets of the Haryana
State Electricity Board, with whom the respondent /assessee had a sale and
lease back transaction, which was both in form and content a financial lease.
West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 21 June, 2005
Further, an SLP filed by the Revenue against the decision
of this Court in West Coast Paper Mills Ltd.(supra) was also not
entertained by the Apex Court by its order dated 9 th October, 2009 in
SLP (c) No. 26627 of 2009. Besides, in these facts we find that it is not
disputed that HSEB has not claimed any depreciation and the respondent
assessee had also taken loan against security of the leased assets."
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
M/S. I.C.D.S. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr on 14 January, 2013
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, in our opinion, the position in law as enunciated in the decision of the
Supreme Court in I.C.D.S. (supra) would squarely be applicable in the facts of
the present case. The revenue's contention on the basis of clauses of lease
agreement, that the assessee although was the purchaser of the assets in
Page 12 of 16
31 July, 2024
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Castlerock Fisheries on 26 February, 1980
17.ITXA1567 & 1604_2018.DOC
accepted by the department that in letting out the plant and
machinery, the assessee was still doing business and the hire charges
which it had received, had been assessed as business income of the
assessee. Hence the assessee had complied with all the conditions for
the grant of development rebate including the condition that the
assessee had used the machinery for the purposes of its business. The
High Court said that it must, therefore, necessarily be assumed that
the conditions laid down in Section 33(1)(a) that the machinery or
plant is wholly used for the purposes of the business carried on by the
assessee, is duly satisfied and the assessee is entitled to development
rebate.