Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT and National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT

320 ITR 374Supreme Court of India2010#8021 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

Judgments citing Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT and National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT

ACIT CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SOL ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6017/MUM/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2013-14 Acit, Circle – 3(2)(1) Vs. Sol Entertainment Pvt Ltd Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 903-904, 9Th Floor, Aayakar Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Bhavan, Mk Road, Road, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No.Aapcs6369A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 4

…serves which are carried to reserve through the profit and loss account can be added back while computing book profit. 7. The assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 320 ITR 374 (SC) and the decision of the Co-ordinate Mumbai Bench in case of ITO v. United Estate Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 6049/MUM/2010. 8. The CIT(A) examined the financial statements and the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 115JB and observed that the revaluation reserve had not been debited to the profit and loss account. Therefore, the condition presc…

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

ITA 4485/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Revenue by Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 115JSection 14A

…45. We have gone through the case law relied on by 45. We have gone through the case law relied on by the Counsel for assessee of the Hon'ble the Counsel for assessee of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v 'CIT (320 ITR 374)(SC). In Supreme Court in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v 'CIT (320 ITR 374)(SC). In Supreme Court in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v 'CIT (320 ITR 374)(SC). In this case, the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether advance against this case, the question before the Hon'ble Supreme…

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

ITA 4484/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Revenue by Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 115JSection 14A

…45. We have gone through the case law relied on by 45. We have gone through the case law relied on by the Counsel for assessee of the Hon'ble the Counsel for assessee of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v 'CIT (320 ITR 374)(SC). In Supreme Court in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v 'CIT (320 ITR 374)(SC). In Supreme Court in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v 'CIT (320 ITR 374)(SC). In this case, the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether advance against this case, the question before the Hon'ble Supreme…

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 4293/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Revenue by Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 115JSection 14A

…45. We have gone through the case law relied on by 45. We have gone through the case law relied on by the Counsel for assessee of the Hon'ble the Counsel for assessee of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v 'CIT (320 ITR 374)(SC). In Supreme Court in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v 'CIT (320 ITR 374)(SC). In Supreme Court in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v 'CIT (320 ITR 374)(SC). In this case, the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether advance against this case, the question before the Hon'ble Supreme…

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 4291/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Revenue by Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 115JSection 14A

…45. We have gone through the case law relied on by 45. We have gone through the case law relied on by the Counsel for assessee of the Hon'ble the Counsel for assessee of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v 'CIT (320 ITR 374)(SC). In Supreme Court in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v 'CIT (320 ITR 374)(SC). In Supreme Court in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v 'CIT (320 ITR 374)(SC). In this case, the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether advance against this case, the question before the Hon'ble Supreme…

ACIT, LTU, CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI vs. JINDAL POLY FILMS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 7511/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 14Section 14ASection 250(6)

…g principles/standards. The accounts of the Assessee are duly audited. The Assessee in support of its case, also relied upon the judgmentsof the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT and National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT, 320 ITR 374 and by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shyam Century Ferrous Ltd., 80 taxmann.com 245 and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abdhut Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., 338 ITR 94. 10. On the contrary, the ld. DR drew our attention to the speech of the Finance Minister with regard to introduction of section 115J and…

JINDAL POLY FILMS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, LTU, CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 7464/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 14Section 14ASection 250(6)

…g principles/standards. The accounts of the Assessee are duly audited. The Assessee in support of its case, also relied upon the judgmentsof the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT and National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT, 320 ITR 374 and by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shyam Century Ferrous Ltd., 80 taxmann.com 245 and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abdhut Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., 338 ITR 94. 10. On the contrary, the ld. DR drew our attention to the speech of the Finance Minister with regard to introduction of section 115J and…

ACIT, SHIMLA vs. M/S SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., SHIMLA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 596/CHANDI/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev SoodFor Respondent: Smt. Mona Mohanti, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 40Section 80I

…foresaid amount of Rs. 515.45 Cr was infact ‘advance against depreciation’ which the assessee in the earlier years had booked under the head ‘Sales’. However, subsequently in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NHPC Vs CIT 320 ITR 374 wherein it has been held that the same is not a reserve or income accrued, rather the advance against depreciation is the income received in advance which is subject to adjustment in future. The assessee rectified its accounts and accordingly, deleted/taken back the same from the head income/sales income and claimed that the same is not income…

S.J.V.N. LTD.,SHIMLA vs. ADDL. CIT, SHIMLA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 583/CHANDI/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev SoodFor Respondent: Smt. Mona Mohanti, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 40Section 80I

…foresaid amount of Rs. 515.45 Cr was infact ‘advance against depreciation’ which the assessee in the earlier years had booked under the head ‘Sales’. However, subsequently in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NHPC Vs CIT 320 ITR 374 wherein it has been held that the same is not a reserve or income accrued, rather the advance against depreciation is the income received in advance which is subject to adjustment in future. The assessee rectified its accounts and accordingly, deleted/taken back the same from the head income/sales income and claimed that the same is not income…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 487/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Vimlendu Verma (CIT)For Respondent: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 115J

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; ikWy jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 487 & 488/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 cuke Deputy Commissioner of M/s Rajasthan Rajya Vs. Income-tax, Circle-06, Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Jaipur Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR7436B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)…

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1716/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N K Pradhan, Am The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, Range- Neville House, J.N. Heradia Marg, 2(1)(1), Mumbai Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Room No.561, Aayakar Pan No.Aaact2328K Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020

Section 144C(5)

…he law and misdirected himself in making the addition to the book profits in this behalf. 45. We have gone through the case law relied on by the Counsel for assessee of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v 'CIT (320 ITR 374)(SC). In this case, the question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was as to whether advance against depreciation (AAD) could be regarded as amount carried to reserves within the meaning of clause (b) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB or not. In this context, the Supreme Court has explained the true interpretation of clause(b) on page 376, 377 in…

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-07 vs. M/S POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.

ITA/595/2017HC Delhi08 Sept 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 271Section 28

…$~1 &3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 1 + ITA No. 595/2017 PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-07 Appellant Through: Mr. SanjayKumar, Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Standing Counsels for Revenue. versus POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. VedJain, Ms.RanuJain, Mr.Pranjal Srivastava, Advocates. AND 3 + ITA No. 725/2017 PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-07 Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Standing Counsels for Revenue. versus POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIALTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Ved Jain, Ms. Ranu Jain, Mr.Pranjal Srivastava, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUS…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we confirm the order of the Ld

ITA 191/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Rawal, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…income. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the ld. AO preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order of penalty. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of NHPC Limited vs. CIT 320 ITR 374 (SC) deleted the penalty. With respect to the other addition of Rs. 1.53 crores and Rs. 12.09 crores as transmission charges, it was submitted by the assessee that these amounts were billed pursuant to the order of the CERC dated 6.9.2004 and because of the uncertainty involved in receipt of this money as Bills have been have been protested by…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we confirm the order of the Ld

ITA 189/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Rawal, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…income. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the ld. AO preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order of penalty. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of NHPC Limited vs. CIT 320 ITR 374 (SC) deleted the penalty. With respect to the other addition of Rs. 1.53 crores and Rs. 12.09 crores as transmission charges, it was submitted by the assessee that these amounts were billed pursuant to the order of the CERC dated 6.9.2004 and because of the uncertainty involved in receipt of this money as Bills have been have been protested by…