Ita/5011/2012 Of Renuka Sugars Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 2
High Court
09 Oct 2012 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · karhcdharwad
Parties
Ita/5011/2012 Of Renuka Sugars Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 2
Date of order
09 Oct 2012
Assessment year(s)
2003-2004
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/5011/2012 Of Renuka Sugars Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 2, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: 2.The short question that arise for considerationfor this Court in this appeal is, as to whether the subsidyreceived by the appellant/assessee cannot be reduced fromthe cost of the asset of the appellant for the purpose olallowing depreciation by applying the explanation 10 olsection 43(1) of the Ac...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THRE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKCIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATHD THIS THR 9 DAY OF OCTOBBR 2012PRBSENT
THR HON’BRBLE MR. JUSTICK K.L.MANJUNA
ANT
THR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICEK B. MANOH
ITA NO.5011/2012
BRTWERE
SHRI RENUKA SUGARS LTD.,105, HAVELOCK ROAD,CAMP, BELGAUM,REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON,VIDYA M. MURKUMBI,AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,R/O. CAMP, BELGAUM.
(BY SHRI SANGRAM 8. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
APPRLLANT
AND:
1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 2, 3 FLOOR,CIRCLE 2, 3 FLOOR,
PHIROZ KHIMJI COMPLEX,OPP.: CIVIL HOSPITAL,DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM.OPP.: CIVIL HOSPITAL,DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM.
2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2,( FLOOR, PHIROZ KHIMJI COMPLEX,OPP.: CIVIL HOSPITAL,DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM.OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2,( FLOOR, PHIROZ KHIMJI COMPLEX,OPP.: CIVIL HOSPITAL,DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM.
— RBSPONDENTS
(BY SHRI Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 2Q6O0A OF TINCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED IN ITANO.151/PNJ/2011 DATED 22.12.2011 ON THE FILE OF THEINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJIDISMISSING THR APPBAL FILED BY THE ASSBSSKEB
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,K.L.MANJUNATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for theappellant and Mr. Y.V.Raviraj, counsel for respondent.
2.The short question that arise for considerationfor this Court in this appeal is, as to whether the subsidyreceived by the appellant/assessee cannot be reduced fromthe cost of the asset of the appellant for the purpose olallowing depreciation by applying the explanation 10 olsection 43(1) of the Act. The Income Tax AppellateTribunal has dismissed the appeal of the appellant, relyingupon the judgment of this Court between the same partiesfor the previous assessment year 2003-2004 in ITANo.284/2009 vide order dated O7.04.2011. Therefore,
93003=718�./*�+93,*5+7-�3,-*, �=*�-3�13.�5**�+1?�54>5.+1.7+0
<4*5.731�39�0+=�+,75*5�71�./75�+66*+0�
�223,-7180? �./75�+66*+0�75�-75@755*-�
�-$������
�-$������
"16E
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue