Bihar Agricultural Produce v. CIT

315 ITR 301High Court2009#4188 most cited

What is Bihar Agricultural Produce v. CIT authority for?

Grants and interest received for specific projects are not taxable if they are spent for the expenses of those projects and no surplus remains. This applies even if the expenses exceed the receipts, meaning there is no profit to be taxed.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bihar Agricultural Produce v CIT · 315 ITR 301 · grants · project expenses · non-taxable income · surplus · Vambay Scheme

Sections most often in play

Section 2017Section 56 of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 11(2)(a)section 10(20a)section 10(20)section 58section 13(1)(d)section 12aa(3)section 13(8)section 80ib(10)section 11(3)legal expensessection 11(5)accumulation of income

Judgments citing Bihar Agricultural Produce v. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

ITA 22/LKW/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…of profit in such grant. Placing his reliance on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Limited 288 ITR 106 (All) b. Bihar Agricultural Produce vs. CIT, 205 taxman 378 (Patna) c. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation 315 ITR 301 The ld. CIT(A) held that the grant and interest which have been taxed by the ld. AO were meant for specific projects and had been spent for meeting the expenses of these projects and hence these amounts were not taxable. He further held that since the expenses incurred by the assessee during the years under consideration under the Vambay Scheme…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

ITA 21/LKW/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…of profit in such grant. Placing his reliance on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Limited 288 ITR 106 (All) b. Bihar Agricultural Produce vs. CIT, 205 taxman 378 (Patna) c. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation 315 ITR 301 The ld. CIT(A) held that the grant and interest which have been taxed by the ld. AO were meant for specific projects and had been spent for meeting the expenses of these projects and hence these amounts were not taxable. He further held that since the expenses incurred by the assessee during the years under consideration under the Vambay Scheme…

U.P Housing & Development Board, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-2(3), Lucknow

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

ITA 535/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel & Sh. Mazhar Akram, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 12A

…of profit in such grant. Placing his reliance on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Limited 288 ITR 106 (All) b. Bihar Agricultural Produce vs. CIT, 205 taxman 378 (Patna) c. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation 315 ITR 301 The ld. CIT(A) held that the grant and interest which have been taxed by the ld. AO were meant for specific projects and had been spent for meeting the expenses of these projects and hence these amounts were not taxable. He further held that since the expenses incurred by the assessee during the years under consideration under the Vambay Scheme w…

U.P Housing & Development Board, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-2(3), Lucknow

ITA 534/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel &
Section 11Section 12A

…of profit in such grant. Placing his reliance on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Limited 288 ITR 106 (All) b. Bihar Agricultural Produce vs. CIT, 205 taxman 378 (Patna) c. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation 315 ITR 301 The ld. CIT(A) held that the grant and interest which have been taxed by the ld. AO were meant for specific projects and had been spent for meeting the expenses of these projects and hence these amounts were not taxable. He further held that since the expenses incurred by the assessee during the years under consideration under the Vambay Scheme w…

Income Tax Officer-2(3), Lucknow vs. U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

ITA 533/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…of profit in such grant. Placing his reliance on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Limited 288 ITR 106 (All) b. Bihar Agricultural Produce vs. CIT, 205 taxman 378 (Patna) c. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation 315 ITR 301 The ld. CIT(A) held that the grant and interest which have been taxed by the ld. AO were meant for specific projects and had been spent for meeting the expenses of these projects and hence these amounts were not taxable. He further held that since the expenses incurred by the assessee during the years under consideration under the Vambay Scheme w…

Income Tax Officer-2(3), Lucknow vs. U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

ITA 532/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…of profit in such grant. Placing his reliance on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Limited 288 ITR 106 (All) b. Bihar Agricultural Produce vs. CIT, 205 taxman 378 (Patna) c. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation 315 ITR 301 The ld. CIT(A) held that the grant and interest which have been taxed by the ld. AO were meant for specific projects and had been spent for meeting the expenses of these projects and hence these amounts were not taxable. He further held that since the expenses incurred by the assessee during the years under consideration under the Vambay Scheme w…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere vs. Managing Director Davangere Smart City Limited, Davangere

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 858/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 857 & 858/Bang/2023 Assessment years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. The Managing Director, Ward 1, Davanagere Smart City Ltd., Davangere. Shree Towers, Hadadi Road, Davangere – 577 004. PAN : AAKCM 6546J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Respondent by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Date of hearing : 24.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Davangere vs. Managing Director Davanagere Smart City Limited, Davangere

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 857/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 857 & 858/Bang/2023 Assessment years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. The Managing Director, Ward 1, Davanagere Smart City Ltd., Davangere. Shree Towers, Hadadi Road, Davangere – 577 004. PAN : AAKCM 6546J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Respondent by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Date of hearing : 24.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 923/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…T(A) is justified in placing reliance upon judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka rendered in assessee's own case in ITA No. 117/2015 c/w 118/2015 wherein the decision of CIT Vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation [(2009) 315 ITR 301 (Kar)] and CIT Vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing and Export Corporation Ltd. [(2015) 377 ITR 496 (Kar.)] have been relied upon which are distinguishable as in those cases there was welfare and no profit motive was involved whereas in instant case, the profit motive is germane as the assessee is providing transport facility and e…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1116/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 3rd Floor, BMTC Complex Deputy Commissioner of KH Road Income-tax Vs. Shanti Nagar Circle-1(1)(2) Bangalore 560 027 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACB4881D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. CIT Special Range-1 Bangalore Metro Rail Bangalore Vs. Corporation Ltd. Bangalore 560 027 APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA N…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1115/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 3rd Floor, BMTC Complex Deputy Commissioner of KH Road Income-tax Vs. Shanti Nagar Circle-1(1)(2) Bangalore 560 027 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACB4881D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. CIT Special Range-1 Bangalore Metro Rail Bangalore Vs. Corporation Ltd. Bangalore 560 027 APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA N…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1114/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 3rd Floor, BMTC Complex Deputy Commissioner of KH Road Income-tax Vs. Shanti Nagar Circle-1(1)(2) Bangalore 560 027 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACB4881D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. CIT Special Range-1 Bangalore Metro Rail Bangalore Vs. Corporation Ltd. Bangalore 560 027 APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA N…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 3rd Floor, BMTC Complex Deputy Commissioner of KH Road Income-tax Vs. Shanti Nagar Circle-1(1)(2) Bangalore 560 027 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACB4881D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. CIT Special Range-1 Bangalore Metro Rail Bangalore Vs. Corporation Ltd. Bangalore 560 027 APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA N…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1112/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 3rd Floor, BMTC Complex Deputy Commissioner of KH Road Income-tax Vs. Shanti Nagar Circle-1(1)(2) Bangalore 560 027 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACB4881D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. CIT Special Range-1 Bangalore Metro Rail Bangalore Vs. Corporation Ltd. Bangalore 560 027 APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA N…

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 1, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1048/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 3rd Floor, BMTC Complex Deputy Commissioner of KH Road Income-tax Vs. Shanti Nagar Circle-1(1)(2) Bangalore 560 027 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACB4881D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. CIT Special Range-1 Bangalore Metro Rail Bangalore Vs. Corporation Ltd. Bangalore 560 027 APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA N…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2181/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2180 & 2181/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Income Tax, Administrative Building, Chennai Metro Corporate Circle 1(2), Rail Depot, P.H. Road, Opp. To Daniel Chennai 600 034. Thomas School, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107. [Pan: Aadcc2233K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 14.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since Common Ground Involved, Both The Appeals Were Heard & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. The Only Common Ground Raised In Both The Appeals Relates To Deletion Of Addition Made Towards Interest Income.

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 14Section 4

…ourt in the case of City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 343 ITR 102 and in the light of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (2009) 315 ITR 301 as well as similar decisions of Delhi and Patna High Court referred in the appellate order. 6.2 Before us, besides strongly supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A), 10 I.T.A. Nos.2180 & 2181/Chny/18 the ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. VGR Foundations 298 ITR…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2180/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2180 & 2181/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Income Tax, Administrative Building, Chennai Metro Corporate Circle 1(2), Rail Depot, P.H. Road, Opp. To Daniel Chennai 600 034. Thomas School, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107. [Pan: Aadcc2233K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 14.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since Common Ground Involved, Both The Appeals Were Heard & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. The Only Common Ground Raised In Both The Appeals Relates To Deletion Of Addition Made Towards Interest Income.

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 14Section 4

…ourt in the case of City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 343 ITR 102 and in the light of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (2009) 315 ITR 301 as well as similar decisions of Delhi and Patna High Court referred in the appellate order. 6.2 Before us, besides strongly supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A), 10 I.T.A. Nos.2180 & 2181/Chny/18 the ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. VGR Foundations 298 ITR…

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1263/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Dcit, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Circle – 11(2), K H Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 027. Pan : Aaacb 4881 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250

…r s. 56 of the Act. The company may also, as in this case, keep the surplus fund in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interests will be chargeable under s. 56 of the Act." 14. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of KUIDFC [(2009) 315 ITR 301], supra, has held thus:- "An identical question had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in (CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation 12006] 284 ITR 582), I.T.A. No. 2418 of 2005 between the same parties, decided on February 21. 2006. The said judgment has been placed for consideration b…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

ITA/118/2015HC Karnataka23 Nov 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 10(35)Section 260

…of the Act. The company may also, as in this case, keep the surplus fund in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interests will be chargeable under s. 56 of the Act.” 14. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of KUIDFC [(2009) 315 ITR 301], supra, has held thus:- - 13 - “An identical question had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in (CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation [2006] 284 ITR 582), I.T.A. No. 2418 of 2005 between the same parties, decided on February 21, 2006. The said judgment has b…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

ITA/117/2015HC Karnataka23 Nov 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 10(35)Section 260

…of the Act. The company may also, as in this case, keep the surplus fund in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interests will be chargeable under s. 56 of the Act.” 14. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of KUIDFC [(2009) 315 ITR 301], supra, has held thus:- - 13 - “An identical question had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in (CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation [2006] 284 ITR 582), I.T.A. No. 2418 of 2005 between the same parties, decided on February 21, 2006. The said judgment has b…