CIT v. Andhra Petrochemicals Ltd.

373 ITR 207Reported decision2015#4688 most cited

What is CIT v. Andhra Petrochemicals Ltd. authority for?

Different components of a contract cannot be read in isolation when determining tax implications.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Andhra Petrochemicals Ltd. · 2015 · contract components · reading in isolation · interpretation of contracts · Andhra Pradesh High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 9(1)(vii)Section 234BSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(C)Section 148Section 234DSection 244A

Issues it is cited on

section 209(1)section 9(1)(vii)fixed place pesection 144c(3)interest u/s 234csection 9(1)(i)fees for technical servicessection 263(1)interest u/s 234bsection 5(2)section 9(1)section 144c(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Andhra Petrochemicals Ltd.

DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S. Andritz Ag, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2622/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 9(1)(vii)

…nufactured by a third party. Therefore, in our view, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision squarely apply to the facts of the present appeal. 16. In case of CIT Vs. Andhra Petrochemicals Ltd. reported in [2015] 373 ITR 207, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High court has observed that different components of the contract cannot be read in isolation. Similar view has also been expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi 11 | P a g e ITA No.5991/Del/2015; 288/Del/2017; 7850/Del/2017 & 2622/Del/2017 High Court in case of CIT Vs. Mitsui Engineering and Ship Building (supra). 17. Inso…

Andritz Ag, New Delhi vs. DDIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 5991/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 9(1)(vii)

…nufactured by a third party. Therefore, in our view, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision squarely apply to the facts of the present appeal. 16. In case of CIT Vs. Andhra Petrochemicals Ltd. reported in [2015] 373 ITR 207, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High court has observed that different components of the contract cannot be read in isolation. Similar view has also been expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi 11 | P a g e ITA No.5991/Del/2015; 288/Del/2017; 7850/Del/2017 & 2622/Del/2017 High Court in case of CIT Vs. Mitsui Engineering and Ship Building (supra). 17. Inso…

Sms Concast Ag, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1361/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 9(1)(vii)

…Therefore, in our view, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the 16 | P a g e AY: 2008-09 aforesaid decision squarely apply to the facts of the present appeal. 16. In case of CIT Vs. Andhra Petrochemicals Ltd. reported in [2015] 373 ITR 207, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High court has observed that different components of the contract cannot be read in isolation. Similar view has also been expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Mitsui Engineering and Ship Building (supra). 17. Insofar as the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of AEG Aktieng…

Pidilite Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO TDS 2(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, for

ITA 2174/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 191Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…The assessee relied upon the following judgment. CIT v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (190 ITR 626) (Cal.) CIT v. Maggronic Devices (P) Ltd. (329 ITR 442) (HP) (para 14) CIT v. Klayman Porcelain Ltd (229 ITR 735) (AP HC) (para 6) CIT v. Andhra Petrochemicals Ltd (373 ITR 207) (AP) (para 28) M/s. Saregama (I) Ltd. v. ACIT(lTANo. 1813/Kol/2009) (Kol.) (para 10) ITO v. Heubach Color (P.) Ltd. (69 SOT 173) (Ahm.) (para 6). This is subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Creative Infocity Ltd.(82 taxmann.com 356) DCIT v. V. Rama Krishna (41 ITR(T) 157) (Hyd.) (para 15) > DDIT v. Tat…

M/S. Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, (TDS) Circle - 59, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1813/KOL/2009[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: S/Shri J. P. Khaitan & Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Nag, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No. 1813/Kol/2009 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Saregama (I) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AAACT9815B) (TDS), Circle-59, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 30.10.2015 Date of pronouncement: 20.11.2015 For the Appellant:S/Shri J. P. Khaitan & Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocates For the Respondent: Shri R. P. Nag, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri Mahavir Singh, JM: This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-XIX, Kolkata in Appeal No.445/CIT(A)-XI…