Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. v. CIT

251 ITR 329Supreme Court of India2001#2170 most cited

What is Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Income earned during the construction phase of a project, which has a direct and inextricable nexus with the project's setting up, constitutes a capital receipt and reduces the project's cost, rather than being taxable as revenue income. This applies to incidental income like interest on funds (e.g., share capital, grants) temporarily parked before being utilized for the specific project.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. v. CIT · 251 ITR 329 · SC · capital receipt · income during construction · project cost reduction · section 56 · income from other sources · capital expenditure · inextricable link to project · interest on project funds · set-up of project

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35DDASection 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 23(5)construction peannual letting valueannual valuesection 22infrastructure facilityprofits and gains of business or professionsection 56income from other sourcesliable to taxsection 24capital expenditure

Judgments citing Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. v. CIT

VNG AUTOMOTIVE P. LTD. vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

The appeals are disposed of as allowed

ITA-795/2004HC Delhi10 Apr 2026
For Appellant: Mr. Satyen Sethi & Mr. Arta Trana PandaFor Respondent: Mr Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr Apoorv
Section 148

…her sources. The reasoning in Indian Oil is in line with Bokaro Steel Ltd. Similarly, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Karnataka Power Corpn. [2001] 247 ITR 268/[2000] 112 Taxman 629 (SC) and Bongaigaon v Refinery & Petrochemicals Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 329/119 Taxman 488 (SC) held that such receipts are not income. 10. It is no doubt correct that the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act enacts that any amount of the interest paid towards ("in respect of") capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset or for extension of existing business regardless of its capitalization in the…

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6692/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2014-15 Mumbai International Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Airport Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – Chhatrpati Shivaji 400020. International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) A.Y:2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Vs. Mumbai International Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Airport Ltd., New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, 400020. Chhatrpati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabha Soparkar Virtually Appeared Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand V Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.08.2025 In The Case Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2014–15. The Assessment In The Present Case Was Originally Completed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2017. Since The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Arise Out Of The Same Appellate Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

…rther relied upon various judicial precedents including CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (236 ITR 315), CIT vs. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (243 ITR 2), CIT vs. Karnataka Power Corporation (247 ITR 268) and Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (251 ITR 329) to contend that income earned during the construction stage having direct nexus with the project should go to reduce the project cost. 47. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the explanation furnished by the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, the gain arising on redemption of mutual fund units represented an independent in…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. CHENANI NASHRI TUNNELWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4686/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupal RapelliFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR

…r to earn interest. Such interest will be chargeable under section 56 of the Act. 3.3 The aforesaid decision from Hon'ble Apex Court was also considered /reiterated in CIT v. Autokast Ltd. (248 ITR 110) (SC) and Bongaigaon Refinery Petrochemicals Ltd. V. CIT 251 ITR 329 (SC). In view of these decisions, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) treated the interest income on fixed deposits as "income from other sources". Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. (supra) held as under:- "2. The only Issue which arose for consideration of the authorities below was as to t…

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

…the Hon'ble SSJ was a member) following the judgments in the case of KUIDFC [(2006) 284 ITR 582], Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., supra, as well as Bongaigaor Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2001) 251 ITR 329 (SC) and Commissioner of Inconte-tax vs. Jokaro Steel Ltd., reported in (1999) 236, ITR 315 (SC), has held thus:- "in the light of the judgments referred to above, we have examined the case on hand. It is clear that the assessee has received the grant of Rs.10 crores from the Government of Karnataka for a particular project i.e., for improvement…

VIATON ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1280/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(3)

…ubmissions on all these aspects. He considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Bokaro Steel Ltd., (supra), Bongaigaon Refinery and Petro Chemicals Ltd., 251 ITR 329, Karnal Co-Operative Sugar Mills 243 ITR 2 (SC) and so many other decisions relevant on the issue and reached a conclusion that the expression ‘directly and inextricably connected’ does not include parking the funds in fixed deposits to earn the interest. According to him, interest on idle or surplus funds is certainly income, not directly and in…

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-2, NEW DELHI vs. BOKARO POWER SUPPLY COMPANY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 4455/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri PN Shastri, Adv Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…pplicable to the present case, as discussed. This is in consonance with "Bokaro Steel Ltd.” (supra), "Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mill” (supra), “CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation”, 247 ITR 268 (SC) and “Bongaigaon Refinery and Petro Chemical Co.Ltd. vs. CIT”, 251 ITR 329 (SC), wherein also, it has been laid down that any receipt inextricably linked to the setting up of the project is capital receipt not liable to tax and going to reduce the cost of the project. In the present case too, the funds infused by the assessee company were inextricably linked with the setting up of the power plant. Likewise, the interest…

M/S. KANPUR FERTILIZERS & CEMENT LTD.,NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4946/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR

…pitalized. For coming to such conclusion, the CIT(A) has taken cognizance of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd. (supra), Karnataka corporation Sugar Mills Ltd. & Bongaigaon Refinery & Petro Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 329 which in turn distinguish the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. (supra). The CIT(A) has observed on facts that assessee kept fixed deposit as margin money with SBI for obtaining bank guarantee to avail term loan facility for the project related works. The margin money kept is 10% of the bank guar…

M/S. KANPUR FERTILIZERS & CEMENT LTD.,NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA

Appeal are allowed

ITA 308/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…pitalized. For coming to such conclusion, the CIT(A) has taken cognizance of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd. (supra), Karnataka corporation Sugar Mills Ltd. & Bongaigaon Refinery & Petro Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 329 which in turn distinguish the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. (supra). The CIT(A) has observed on facts that assessee kept fixed deposit as margin money with SBI for obtaining bank guarantee to avail term loan facility for the project related works. The margin money kept is 10% of the bank guar…

SHREE SAI SAGAR CONSULTANTS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC-5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2191/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Jayant Bhatt & Jitali GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R.N. D‟Souza
Section 143(3)Section 68

…be no order as to costs.” 6.4. Similar views were expressed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Bokaro Steel Ltd reported in 236 ITR 315 (SC) ; Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd vs CIT reported in 251 ITR 329 (SC); Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd vs CIT reported in 96 taxmann.com 167 (Bom) and Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd vs ITO reported in 315 ITR 255 (Del). 6.5. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -6,, PUNE vs. M/S. SION PANVEL TOLLWAYS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and

ITA 489/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 57

…le funds and the making of FDRs had no relation with the purpose for which the loan was taken. Such a distinction can be more appropriately appreciated with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 329 (SC), in which the assessee derived income towards charges for equipment and recoveries from the contractors on account of water and 14 M/s. Sion Panvel Tollways Pvt. Ltd., A.Yrs. 2013-14 & 2014-15 electricity supply during the formation period and also earned interest income from deposits prior to commencement of the business. It was held tha…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -6,, PUNE vs. M/S. SION PANVEL TOLLWAYS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and

ITA 249/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 57

…le funds and the making of FDRs had no relation with the purpose for which the loan was taken. Such a distinction can be more appropriately appreciated with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 329 (SC), in which the assessee derived income towards charges for equipment and recoveries from the contractors on account of water and 14 M/s. Sion Panvel Tollways Pvt. Ltd., A.Yrs. 2013-14 & 2014-15 electricity supply during the formation period and also earned interest income from deposits prior to commencement of the business. It was held tha…

SAI SIDDHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC -5(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2193/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…l be no order as to costs.” 6.4. Similar views were expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Bokaro Steel Ltd reported in 236 ITR 315 (SC) ; Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd vs CIT reported in 251 ITR 329 (SC); Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd vs CIT reported in 96 taxmann.com 167 (Bom) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd vs ITO reported in 315 ITR 255 (Del). 6.5. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial…

SAI SIDDHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC-5(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2192/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

…l be no order as to costs.” 6.4. Similar views were expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Bokaro Steel Ltd reported in 236 ITR 315 (SC) ; Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd vs CIT reported in 251 ITR 329 (SC); Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd vs CIT reported in 96 taxmann.com 167 (Bom) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd vs ITO reported in 315 ITR 255 (Del). 6.5. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial…

M/S. SAI SIDDHI DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC-5(40 , MUMBAI

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2190/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

…l be no order as to costs.” 6.4. Similar views were expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Bokaro Steel Ltd reported in 236 ITR 315 (SC) ; Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd vs CIT reported in 251 ITR 329 (SC); Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd vs CIT reported in 96 taxmann.com 167 (Bom) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd vs ITO reported in 315 ITR 255 (Del). 6.5. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial…

SHREE SAI CONSULTANTS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-5(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2188/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)

…l be no order as to costs.” 6.4. Similar views were expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Bokaro Steel Ltd reported in 236 ITR 315 (SC) ; Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd vs CIT reported in 251 ITR 329 (SC); Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd vs CIT reported in 96 taxmann.com 167 (Bom) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd vs ITO reported in 315 ITR 255 (Del). 6.5. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial…

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

…t be treated as income. Similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in the case Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 2. An identical view was also taken by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 329 and Karnataka Power Corporation (2001) 247 ITR 268. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) has noted that in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (1997) 27 ITR 172, it was only in the event of interest earned from out of deposits made from borrowed funds that it would be in the nature of income. Thus, th…

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

…t be treated as income. Similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in the case Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 2. An identical view was also taken by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 329 and Karnataka Power Corporation (2001) 247 ITR 268. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) has noted that in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (1997) 27 ITR 172, it was only in the event of interest earned from out of deposits made from borrowed funds that it would be in the nature of income. Thus, th…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ROHTAK PANIPAT TOLLWAY PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1938/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R
Section 271Section 56

…I.T.A No. 1938/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 4 Dy. CIT vs. M/s. Rohtak Panipat Tollway Pvt. Ltd. (iii) NTPC Sail Power Company Pvt. Ltd. ITA 1238/2011 (Del. HC) (iv) Bokaro Steel Limited - 236 ITR 315 (SC) (v) Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemical Co. Ltd. 251 ITR 329 (SC) However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: In the present case of the appellant company, as discussed in the foregoing paras, the construction of the project was in progress and there was no commencement of any business activities during the relevant period. The funds were invested in the pre-constr…

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

…the Hon'ble SSJ was a member) following the judgments in the case of KUIDFC [(2006) 284 ITR 582], Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., supra, as well as Bongaigaor Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2001) 251 ITR 329 (SC) and Commissioner of Inconte-tax vs. Jokaro Steel Ltd., reported in (1999) 236, ITR 315 (SC), has held thus:- "in the light of the judgments referred to above, we have examined the case on hand. It is clear that the assessee has Page 16 of 22 received the grant of Rs.10 crores from the Government of Karnataka for a particular project i.e., f…

GOLDEN JUBILEE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1536/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2013-14 M/S. Golden Jubilee Hotels Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-2(2), Pan: Aaccg5200D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri S. Rama Rao. Revenue By Sri Swapnil Patil, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/01/2022 O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, A.M:

Section 143(3)

…by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilisers Limited reported in 227 ITR 172 (SC) and also the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited reported in 251 ITR 329 (SC) and thereby made addition of Rs.17,27,404/- with respect to the interest earned during the relevant assessment under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the ld.AO by further relying on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT Vs. Raasi Cements Limited reported in 232…

Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3

Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. v. CIT (251 ITR 329) — Cited in 53 Judgments | BharatTax