Binani Cements Ltd. v. CIT

380 ITR 116High Court2016#1917 most cited

What is Binani Cements Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred in respect of abandoned cell towers is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially when no new business was being set up by the assessee.

60

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Binani Cements Ltd v CIT · 380 ITR 116 · Section 37(1) · business expenditure · abandoned cell towers · allowability of expenditure · new business setup · Calcutta High Court.

Sections most often in play

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ACSection 37Section 40A(9)Section 10B(8)Section 194Section 194ASection 28

Issues it is cited on

section 2(42c)section 2(19aa)ready for usesection 139(3)section 50bsection 10(2)(xv)section 35ddasection 32asection 170section 40a(9)resulting companysection 47

Judgments citing Binani Cements Ltd. v. CIT

The Godavari Sugar Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3591/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Sh. Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Sh. Bomakesh Pradip Kumar Panda
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…: 1. CIT vs Manganese Ore India Ltd. [2016) 67 taxmann.com 268 (Bom) 2. CIT vs Tata Robins Fraser Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 15 (Jharkhand)] 3. Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. Additional CIT [(2014) 65 SOT 15(Mum-Trib) (URO) 4. Binani Cement Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT : [2016 380 ITR 116 (Cal) 5. Aditya Birla Power Company Limited vs. ACIT- [ITA No. 1115/Mum/2012, dated 07.09.2018 (Mumbai Trib.) 6. Gujarat Green Revolution Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT – [(2013) 145 ITD 161 (Ahmedabad)] 7. Lawkin Ltd. vs. JCIT – [2005) 1 SOT 907 (Mum Trib.)] 17. We have perused the aforesaid judgment cited by the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appell…

M/S M/S Bagadiya Brothers Pvt.Ltd., Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, -2(1), Raipur, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 37/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 37/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35D

…ot have been disallowed on the ground that the same was incurred in respect of a new line of business. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of M/s. Binani Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 380 ITR 116 (Cal.). In the case before the Hon’ble High Court the assessee company had claimed deduction of expenditure as regards a project which was abandoned on being found to be unviable. Considering the fact that the expenditure incurred by the assessee company was towards capital work-in-progress that would be 7 Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT-2…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Chhattisgarh Captive Coal Mining Limited, Raipur

ITA 6/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 06/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh Captive Coal Mining Ltd. J-10, Near Tv Tower, Anupam Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc7481N ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Amit M Jain, Advocate Revenue By :Shri P.K Mishra, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Amit M Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 35D

…n’ble Supreme Court dated 24.09.2014 i.e. during the year under consideration would be allowable as a revenue expenditure is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of M/s. Binani Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 380 ITR 116 (Cal.). In the case before he Hon’ble High Court the assesee company had claimed deduction of expenditure as regards a project which was abandoned on being found to be unviable. Considering the fact that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was towards capital work-in- progress that would be entitled for depreciation after its completion and…

Mafatlal Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4369/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…u/s. 28/37(1) of the Act. 46. In support of the above contentions she relied on the following case law: - (i). Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd Vs. ACIT [2018] 407 ITR 543 (Madras HC) (Refer Pg. Nos.6 and 7, Para Nos. 25 and 26) (ii). Binani Cement Ltd Vs. CIT [2016] 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta HC) (Refer Pg. No.11 Para Nos. 11 to 13) (iii). CIT Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd [2016] 76 taxmann.com 77 (Bombay HC) (Refer Pg. No. 14, Para Nos. 9 and 10) (iv). CIT Vs. Graphite India Ltd [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Calcutta HC) (Refer Pg. No. 18). 47. Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Authorities below. 25 ITA NO. 6085 & 6357/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2006…

Mafatlal Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6963/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…u/s. 28/37(1) of the Act. 46. In support of the above contentions she relied on the following case law: - (i). Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd Vs. ACIT [2018] 407 ITR 543 (Madras HC) (Refer Pg. Nos.6 and 7, Para Nos. 25 and 26) (ii). Binani Cement Ltd Vs. CIT [2016] 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta HC) (Refer Pg. No.11 Para Nos. 11 to 13) (iii). CIT Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd [2016] 76 taxmann.com 77 (Bombay HC) (Refer Pg. No. 14, Para Nos. 9 and 10) (iv). CIT Vs. Graphite India Ltd [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Calcutta HC) (Refer Pg. No. 18). 47. Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Authorities below. 25 ITA NO. 6085 & 6357/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2006…

Mafatlal Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6085/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…u/s. 28/37(1) of the Act. 46. In support of the above contentions she relied on the following case law: - (i). Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd Vs. ACIT [2018] 407 ITR 543 (Madras HC) (Refer Pg. Nos.6 and 7, Para Nos. 25 and 26) (ii). Binani Cement Ltd Vs. CIT [2016] 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta HC) (Refer Pg. No.11 Para Nos. 11 to 13) (iii). CIT Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd [2016] 76 taxmann.com 77 (Bombay HC) (Refer Pg. No. 14, Para Nos. 9 and 10) (iv). CIT Vs. Graphite India Ltd [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Calcutta HC) (Refer Pg. No. 18). 47. Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Authorities below. 25 ITA NO. 6085 & 6357/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2006…

Claridge Hotels P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2443/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 30

…have held that entire expenditure incurred on production of film which is abandoned before it was completed is allowable revenue expenditure. 40 Claridge Hotels Pvt. Ltd. g) Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. Praga Tools Ltd. [1986] 157 ITR 282 (AP) has held that “the amounts which were expended by the assessee should be regarded as revenue expenditure. The facts would show that the so-called development expenditure incurred by the assessee was no more than expenditure which had been incurred by the assessee for the purpose of preparing and perfecting designs which were required with re…

ACIT Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai vs. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2100/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2100/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012 – 13 The Acit, M/S. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. Corporate Circle – 5(2), V. Ltd., Chennai - 34. Rr Tower Iii, Thiru Vi Ka Indl. Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aadcr 3575R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. No.: 152/Chny/2017 (In I.T.A. No. 2100/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012 – 13 M/S. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. The Acit, Ltd., V. Corporate Circle – 5(2), Rr Tower Iii, Chennai - 34. Thiru Vi Ka Indl. Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aadcr 3575R राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R. Venkatesh, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkatesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)

…of expenditure of Rs.12,37,27,087/- is added to the taxable income of the assessee for the year.” 5 I.T.A. No.2100/Chny/2017 & C.O No.152/Chny/2017 4. The CIT(A) following the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s. Binani Cements Ltd., 380 ITR 116 (Cal) allowed the assessee’s claim of loss as capital loss to be set off against capital gains arises from transactions relating to the abandoned project. The CIT(A) also noted that even the AO relying on the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P) Ltd., supra and EID Parry India Ltd., supra…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Chaithanya Projects Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1350/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Chaithanya Projects Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 104, 3Rd Floor, Commissioner Of Prestige Omega, Income Tax, Epip Zone, Circle- 2(1) (1), Whitefield, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aabcc4930H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nitish Ranjan, Ca : Smt. H. Kabila, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against Order Dated 25/03/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore, For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(I)Cit(A) Erred In Fact & Law In Holding That The Expenditure Incurred Towards A New Project Of "Health Park", Which Was Capitalized In The Books Of The Assessee, Was Incurred Towards The Existing Business Of 'Development & Construction Of Real Estate Property'.

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, CA
Section 143(2)

…ject undertaken. We draw our support from decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Asia Power Projects (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in (2015) 370 ITR 257 and Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Binani Cement Ltd. Vs. CIT & Anr. reported in (2016) 380 ITR 116. 10. Based on the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Ld.CIT(A). We therefore do not find any merit in the ground raised by revenue. Accordingly the ground raised by revenue stands dismissed. In the result, appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th October, 2021. (CHA…

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 4024/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Bairagra-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha – Ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(a)

…continued to be the property of the supplier. Therefore, since the assessee did not acquire the know-how, the expenditure incurred in this respect was allowable as revenue expenditure. Similarly, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Binani Cement Ltd. V/s CIT (380 ITR 116) held that cost of construction / acquisition of new facility which was abandoned at work-in-progress stage would be an allowable expenditure. The Delhi Tribunal in DCIT V/s Honda Cars India Ltd. (180 ITD 235; 112 Taxmann.com 164) held that where the assessee was already engaged in manufacturing of vehicles, the payments made towards royalty / te…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 882/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…al is enclosed herewith as Annexure-I in paper book. The ld. AR of the assessee 6 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem relied on the following case law in support of assessee’s case: “1. Binani Cements Ltd., vs CIT - 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta HC). 2 CIT vs Praga Tools Ltd. - 157 ITR 282 (AP· HC). 3 Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs Add1.CIT -153 ITD 111· (ITAT Jaipur) head note 4 ITO vs Abdul G Nadiadwala 49 taxmann.com 581 (Mumbai Trib). 5 Jay Engineering Works Ltd Vs CIT -311 ITR405 ( Delhi HC).” Referring to the above submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee requested the Bench to d…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 880/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…al is enclosed herewith as Annexure-I in paper book. The ld. AR of the assessee 6 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem relied on the following case law in support of assessee’s case: “1. Binani Cements Ltd., vs CIT - 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta HC). 2 CIT vs Praga Tools Ltd. - 157 ITR 282 (AP· HC). 3 Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs Add1.CIT -153 ITD 111· (ITAT Jaipur) head note 4 ITO vs Abdul G Nadiadwala 49 taxmann.com 581 (Mumbai Trib). 5 Jay Engineering Works Ltd Vs CIT -311 ITR405 ( Delhi HC).” Referring to the above submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee requested the Bench to d…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 879/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…al is enclosed herewith as Annexure-I in paper book. The ld. AR of the assessee 6 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem relied on the following case law in support of assessee’s case: “1. Binani Cements Ltd., vs CIT - 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta HC). 2 CIT vs Praga Tools Ltd. - 157 ITR 282 (AP· HC). 3 Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs Add1.CIT -153 ITD 111· (ITAT Jaipur) head note 4 ITO vs Abdul G Nadiadwala 49 taxmann.com 581 (Mumbai Trib). 5 Jay Engineering Works Ltd Vs CIT -311 ITR405 ( Delhi HC).” Referring to the above submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee requested the Bench to d…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 803/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…al is enclosed herewith as Annexure-I in paper book. The ld. AR of the assessee 6 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem relied on the following case law in support of assessee’s case: “1. Binani Cements Ltd., vs CIT - 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta HC). 2 CIT vs Praga Tools Ltd. - 157 ITR 282 (AP· HC). 3 Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs Add1.CIT -153 ITD 111· (ITAT Jaipur) head note 4 ITO vs Abdul G Nadiadwala 49 taxmann.com 581 (Mumbai Trib). 5 Jay Engineering Works Ltd Vs CIT -311 ITR405 ( Delhi HC).” Referring to the above submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee requested the Bench to d…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 802/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…al is enclosed herewith as Annexure-I in paper book. The ld. AR of the assessee 6 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem relied on the following case law in support of assessee’s case: “1. Binani Cements Ltd., vs CIT - 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta HC). 2 CIT vs Praga Tools Ltd. - 157 ITR 282 (AP· HC). 3 Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs Add1.CIT -153 ITD 111· (ITAT Jaipur) head note 4 ITO vs Abdul G Nadiadwala 49 taxmann.com 581 (Mumbai Trib). 5 Jay Engineering Works Ltd Vs CIT -311 ITR405 ( Delhi HC).” Referring to the above submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee requested the Bench to d…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 801/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…al is enclosed herewith as Annexure-I in paper book. The ld. AR of the assessee 6 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem relied on the following case law in support of assessee’s case: “1. Binani Cements Ltd., vs CIT - 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta HC). 2 CIT vs Praga Tools Ltd. - 157 ITR 282 (AP· HC). 3 Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs Add1.CIT -153 ITD 111· (ITAT Jaipur) head note 4 ITO vs Abdul G Nadiadwala 49 taxmann.com 581 (Mumbai Trib). 5 Jay Engineering Works Ltd Vs CIT -311 ITR405 ( Delhi HC).” Referring to the above submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee requested the Bench to d…

The Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Kothjagudem, Hyderabad vs. Addl.Citt, Khammam Range, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 561/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…al is enclosed herewith as Annexure-I in paper book. The ld. AR of the assessee 6 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem relied on the following case law in support of assessee’s case: “1. Binani Cements Ltd., vs CIT - 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta HC). 2 CIT vs Praga Tools Ltd. - 157 ITR 282 (AP· HC). 3 Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs Add1.CIT -153 ITD 111· (ITAT Jaipur) head note 4 ITO vs Abdul G Nadiadwala 49 taxmann.com 581 (Mumbai Trib). 5 Jay Engineering Works Ltd Vs CIT -311 ITR405 ( Delhi HC).” Referring to the above submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee requested the Bench to d…

DCIT, Circle-1, Khammam vs. The Singareni Colleries Company Lt.D, Kothagudem

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 519/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…al is enclosed herewith as Annexure-I in paper book. The ld. AR of the assessee 6 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem relied on the following case law in support of assessee’s case: “1. Binani Cements Ltd., vs CIT - 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta HC). 2 CIT vs Praga Tools Ltd. - 157 ITR 282 (AP· HC). 3 Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs Add1.CIT -153 ITD 111· (ITAT Jaipur) head note 4 ITO vs Abdul G Nadiadwala 49 taxmann.com 581 (Mumbai Trib). 5 Jay Engineering Works Ltd Vs CIT -311 ITR405 ( Delhi HC).” Referring to the above submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee requested the Bench to d…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 884/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…al is enclosed herewith as Annexure-I in paper book. The ld. AR of the assessee 6 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem relied on the following case law in support of assessee’s case: “1. Binani Cements Ltd., vs CIT - 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta HC). 2 CIT vs Praga Tools Ltd. - 157 ITR 282 (AP· HC). 3 Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs Add1.CIT -153 ITD 111· (ITAT Jaipur) head note 4 ITO vs Abdul G Nadiadwala 49 taxmann.com 581 (Mumbai Trib). 5 Jay Engineering Works Ltd Vs CIT -311 ITR405 ( Delhi HC).” Referring to the above submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee requested the Bench to d…

M/S. Ue Development India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2381/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…. DCIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 105 TTJ 1002 (Amritsar – Trib) iv. Alembic ChemicalWorks Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 77 ITR 377 (SC) v. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) vi. CIT Vs. BPL Systems and Projects Ltd. 227 ITR 779 (Ker) vii. CIT Vs. PragaTools Ltd. 157 ITR 282 (AP) viii. CIT Vs. Wolkem (P) Ltd Co. 258 ITR 350 (Raj) ix. Tejas Networks India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.470/Bang/2006) (Bang – Trib.) x. CIT Vs. Tejas Networks India P. Ltd. 229 Taxman 40 (Kar) xi. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) xii. CIT Vs. Talisma Corporation (P) Ltd 40 taxmann.com 400 (Kar) xiii. CIT Vs. Associated Cements Co. Ltd.…