Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.36 seconds)

Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 9 January, 2003

Or, that the user does not imply an active user, but could also include a 'ready to use' state, as clarified to be not so by the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agarwal (supra). So however, the assets which are subject to any of the conditions provided in section 43(6)(c)(i)(B) are no longer in the assessee's domain, while the value realized in their respect stands to be adjusted, so that the question or issue boils down to one of value adjustment. It also needs to be noted that the changed method of allowance of depreciation, i.e., after introduction of the concept of 9 MA No. 414/Mum/2014 ITA No. 7315/Mum/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Rishiroop Polymers (P.) Ltd. on 8 September, 2005

CIT vs. Rishiroop Polymers (P.) Ltd. [2006] 102 ITD 129 (Mum). The assessee's alternate claim for allowance of terminal deprecation on the entire amount of written down value (WDV) of the relevant asset, written off in accounts, u/s.32(1)(iii); the said asset having been discarded, was also considered inadmissible by the tribunal on the ground that the asset had not been brought to use in any earlier year. However, it subsequently came to its notice that the provision of section 32(1)(iii) is applicable only to assets subject to 3 MA No. 414/Mum/2014 ITA No. 7315/Mum/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1