Case LawHigh Court › Jct Electronics Ltd v. Joint Commissione...

Jct Electronics Ltd v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 31 Jan 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Jct Electronics Ltd v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
31 Jan 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Jct Electronics Ltd v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: C.Whether the findings recorded by the ITAT sufferfrom material irregularities on account of mis-readingof evidence and are unsustainable in law?” 3.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

Decision: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), thepresent appeal is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

ITA No. 160 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH JCT Electronics Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No. 160 of 2010 Date of Decision: 31.1.2011 ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the orderdated 30.4.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chandigarh Bench “B”, Chandigarh, in ITA No. 135/Chd/2009 for theassessment year 2005-06, claiming following substantial questions oflaw:- “A.Whether full depreciation would be permissible in“block of assets” method even though the assets areused for a very short period?“block of assets” method even though the assets areused for a very short period? B.Whether depreciation can be denied for non use ofassets in cases of an industry having two unitsfunctioning in the relevant assessment year, even -2- though one unit may not have worked for most of the year? C.Whether the findings recorded by the ITAT sufferfrom material irregularities on account of mis-readingof evidence and are unsustainable in law?” 3.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4.In view of order of even date passed in ITA No. 161 of 2010(JCT Electronics Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), thepresent appeal is dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE January 31, 2011gbs (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)JUDGE
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan