A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala

6 SCC 213Reported decision2006#11726 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2024.

Judgments citing A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala

The Commissioner of Income Tax -International Taxation-1 vs. Reema Chawla

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/168/2024HC Delhi11 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 54

…ontrols (P.) Ltd. v. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/03/2024 at 15:41:12 CCE (2006) 6 SCC 213.' 15. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed." 25. The aforenoted findings of the tax authorities are factual and cannot be categorised as perverse. It cannot be said in the facts of the present case that the deduction claimed for the construction were not relatable to the t…

The Commissioner of Income Tax -International Taxation-1 vs. Reema Chawla

Appeals are dismissed

ITA - 168 / 2024HC Delhi11 Mar 2024
Section 54

…ontrols (P.) Ltd. v. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:03:35 CCE (2006) 6 SCC 213.' 15. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed." 25. The aforenoted findings of the tax authorities are factual and cannot be categorised as perverse. It cannot be said in the facts of the present case that the deduction claimed for the construction were not relatable to the t…

Kapil Kumar Agarwal, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2630/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sugandha Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 54Section 54F

…45); State Level Committee v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. [(1996) 1 SCC 108] ; Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE & Customs [1994 Supp (3) SCC 606] ; A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala [(2007) 2 SCC 725] and Reiz Electrocontrols (P.) Ltd. v. CCE. [(2006) 6 SCC 213]' 15. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.” 11. As the impugned issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the above decision of the honourable High Court, we hold that assessee has purchased a house property i.e. a new asset and is entitled to exemption u/s 54F of…

ACIT, Cir-32, Kolkata vs. Jitendra Seth, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1420/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2012-13 Acit, Circle-32, Jitendra Seth बनाम 10B, Middleton Row, 87, Karnani Estate, 209, / 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-71 V/S. A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 017 [Pan No.Ajhs 9552 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenges Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.03.2016 Passed In Case No. 749/Cit(A)-9/Cir-32/2014-15/Kol, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Assessee’S Commission Paid Of ₹51,56,694/- As Well As Partly Restricting Section 54F Deduction Disallowance To ₹42,39,181/- Out Of ₹56,52,242/-; Respectively, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’ Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 54F

…42- 45); State Level Committee v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. [(1996) 1 SCC 108]; Novopan India Ltd v. CCE & Customs [1994 Supp (3) SCC 606]; A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala [(2007) 2 SCC 725] and Reiz Electrocontrols (P) Ltd. v. CCE. [(2006) 6 SCC 213]” 4.11. In this case the deduction u/s. 54F it is required that the investment should be made in a residential house. In this case it is seen that the appellant had made an investment in the residential house. The said house was sanctioned to be both residential and commercial. Therefore in my opinion the appellant satisfied the condition of the in…

M/S Star Industries vs. Commissioner of Customs(Imports) Raigad

C.A. No.-006088-006088 - 2013Supreme Court07 Oct 2015
Section 108Section 110Section 111Section 3(1)

…42 to 45); State Level Committee v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. (1996) 1 SCC 108; Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE & Customs (1994 Supp. (3) SCC 606); A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2007) 2 SCC 725 and Reiz Electrocontrols (P) Ltd. v. CCE (2006) 6 SCC 213.” Civil Appeal No. 6088 of 2013 Page 29 of 32 Page 30 JUDGMENT Judged by this test, it is clear that a hot mix plant of the type mentioned alone is exempt from payment of Customs duty. Obviously, what is meant is that such plant in its entirety must be imported albeit in an unassembled form. Judged by this test, it is clear that the conc…

M/S Star Industries vs. Commissioner of Customs(Imports) Raigad

C.A. No.-006088-006088 - 2013Supreme Court07 Oct 2015
Section 108Section 110Section 111Section 3(1)

…42 to 45); State Level Committee v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. (1996) 1 SCC 108; Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE & Customs (1994 Supp. (3) SCC 606); A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2007) 2 SCC 725 and Reiz Electrocontrols (P) Ltd. v. CCE (2006) 6 SCC 213.” Civil Appeal No. 6088 of 2013 Page 29 of 32 Page 30 JUDGMENT Judged by this test, it is clear that a hot mix plant of the type mentioned alone is exempt from payment of Customs duty. Obviously, what is meant is that such plant in its entirety must be imported albeit in an unassembled form. Judged by this test, it is clear that the conc…

M/S Ivrcl. Infrastructure & Projects Ltd vs. Commnr. of Customs, Chennai

The appeal is dismissed with

C.A. No.-005282-005282 - 2004Supreme Court15 Apr 2015
Section 25(1)

…Page 1 JUDGMENT REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5282 OF 2004 M/S. IVRCL INFRASTRUCTURE & PROJECTS LTD. …APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI ...RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1. The facts necessary to decide this appeal are as follows. The appellant entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Limited for the purpose of construction of roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Joint Venture was awarded a contract by the National Highways Aut…

M/S Ivrcl. Infrastructure & Projects Ltd vs. Commnr. of Customs, Chennai

The appeal is dismissed with

C.A. No.-005282-005282 - 2004Supreme Court15 Apr 2015
Section 25(1)

…Page 1 JUDGMENT REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5282 OF 2004 M/S. IVRCL INFRASTRUCTURE & PROJECTS LTD. …APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI ...RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1. The facts necessary to decide this appeal are as follows. The appellant entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Limited for the purpose of construction of roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Joint Venture was awarded a contract by the National Highways Aut…

Commissioner of Income Tax - Xv vs. Bharti Mishra

ITA - 567 / 2013HC Delhi18 Dec 2013
Section 54Section 54F

…ITA No. 567/2013 Page 1 of 13 $~1. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 567/2013 Date of decision: 18th December, 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - XV ..... Appellant Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus BHARTI MISHRA ..... Respondent Through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL): Learned counsel for the appel…

A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala (6 SCC 213) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax