44 SOT 93 (Ahmedabad) (URO) 13. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

70 SOT 517Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2015#5306 most cited

What is 44 SOT 93 (Ahmedabad) (URO) 13. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT authority for?

A rail system that functions solely as a profit siding and not an infrastructure facility of public utility is not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Also referred to as

U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT · 80IA(4) · infrastructure facility · public utility · profit siding · railway system · deduction claim

Also reported as

62 Taxmann.com 61

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 41(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 80lasection 80ib(4)section 80lsection 80ia(5)section 80ia(4)(i)section 80ia(8)resulting companyinitial assessment yearsection 80ia(4)demergerinfrastructure facilitydeduction under section 80ia

Judgments citing 44 SOT 93 (Ahmedabad) (URO) 13. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Samruddhi Cement Limited (Since Amalgamated Into M/S.Ultratech Cement Limited), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4835/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2010-11
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43B

…of Income Tax [ITA No. 560/Kol/2010] 12.Janak Dehydration (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax [2011] 44 SOT 93 (Ahmedabad)(URO)/[201 0]134 TT J 1 (Ahmedabad)(UO) 13. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax [2015] 70 SOT 517 (Lucknow Trib.)/[2015] 171 TT J 353 (Lucknow Trib.) 14. Asst. Commissioner of Income - Tax vs. M/s. Apex Packing Products (P) Ltd. (ITA Nos. 145 to 150/PNJ/2013) 30. On the other hand, it was vehemently argued by learned DR that rail system of the assessee company was simply the profit siding and not any infrastructure facility of public utility,…

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5065/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Assessee By Shri Arvind Sonde Alongwith Shri Sampat Kabra Revenue By Smt. S.Padmaja

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 80Section 80l

…of Income Tax [ITA No. 560/Kol/2010] 12.Janak Dehydration (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax [2011] 44 SOT 93 (Ahmedabad)(URO)/[201 0]134 TT J 1 (Ahmedabad)(UO) 13. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax [2015] 70 SOT 517 (Lucknow Trib.)/[2015] 171 TT J 353 (Lucknow Trib.) 14. Asst. Commissioner of Income - Tax vs. M/s. Apex Packing Products (P) Ltd. (ITA Nos. 145 to 150/PNJ/2013) 30. On the other hand, it was vehemently argued by learned DR that rail system of the assessee company was simply the profit siding and not any infrastructure facility of public utility,…