CIT v. Autokast Ltd.

248 ITR 110Supreme Court of India2001#2932 most cited

What is CIT v. Autokast Ltd. authority for?

Interest earned on surplus funds deposited in short-term deposits is chargeable under section 56 as income from other sources. This interest cannot be treated as business income unless it is inextricably linked with the business operations.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Autokast Ltd. · section 56 · interest on surplus funds · income from other sources · business income · short-term deposits · Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals

Also reported as

116 Taxmann 244

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 71

Issues it is cited on

section 276ccarry forward of lossesdeletion of penaltysection 57(iii)section 35dsection 70penalty proceedings initiatedsection 11(1)(a)section 244asection 11(1)section 35furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

Judgments citing CIT v. Autokast Ltd.

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

…s in this case, keep the surplus funds in short-term deposits in order 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 Iss…

M/S IIFCL ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result we answer the question as framed in favour of the assessee and against the revenue

ITA 2333/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Rohtagi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 71

…anagement companyand therefore the interest earned on it could not be treated as “income from other sources” but is to be treated as “business income”. 24. We also find that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals 248 ITR 110 is factually distinguishable as in that case the funds were ‘surplus’ whereas in the in the instant case the funds were inextricably linked with the business of management of AMC. The decision in the case of Bokaro Steels Ltd. 236 ITR 315 applies to the factual matrix of the instant case as also the decision in the case of CIT vs Karnal Co-Ope…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA, VAODARA vs. BTW-ATLANTA TRANSFORMERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department in ITA

ITA 295/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, CA &For Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ “B”, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद । अहमदाबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER 1. ITA No.294/Ahd/2024 2. ITA No.295/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively The DCIT BTW Atlanta Transformers Central Circle-3 Vs India Pvt.Ltd. Vadodara 3rd Floor, Shreeji Complex Vasana Bhaili Road Opp. Taksh Complex Vadodara – 390 015 PAN:AAECB…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCL-3, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. BTW -ATLANTA TRANSFORMERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department in ITA

ITA 294/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, CA &For Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ “B”, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद । अहमदाबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER 1. ITA No.294/Ahd/2024 2. ITA No.295/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively The DCIT BTW Atlanta Transformers Central Circle-3 Vs India Pvt.Ltd. Vadodara 3rd Floor, Shreeji Complex Vasana Bhaili Road Opp. Taksh Complex Vadodara – 390 015 PAN:AAECB…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, VADODARA vs. BTW ATLANTA TRANSFORMERS INDIA PVT. LTD, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 644/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘ बी ’, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद । अहमदाबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 The DCIT BTW Atlanta Transformers Central Circle-3 Vs India Pvt.Ltd. Vadodara 3rd Floor, Shreeji Complex Vasana Bhaili Road Opp. Taksh Complex Vadodara – 390 015 PAN:AAECB 9579 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dhanesh Ba…

M/S. SNEHA KINETIC POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD,,HYDERABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1054/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sri.Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 142(2)Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.1054/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/s.Sneha Kinetic Power Projects The Deputy Commissioner of Private Limited, Second Floor Income-tax, v. Plot No.13, Sy.No.64 Part, Block-D Central Circle 2(2) Hitech City Layout, Madhapur Bengaluru. Hyderabad – 500 081. PAN : AAFCS1221B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.V.Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Sri.Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2022 Date of Hearing : 19.12.2022 O R D E R Per Ge…

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI vs. NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2704/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…7 ITR 172 held that the interest income earned on margin money kept in sale, etc., as revenue receipt by observing as under:- 6. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to subsequent decisions of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Autokast Ltd. (248 ITR 110) (SC) and Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (227 ITR 172)(SC). In the case of Autokast Ltd., it was observed that interest on money borrowed for purchase of Plant & Machinery and placed in Short Term Deposit with bank till payment was made and used in bill discounting was taxable as income from other sources. In the case of Tuticori…

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI vs. NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2703/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…7 ITR 172 held that the interest income earned on margin money kept in sale, etc., as revenue receipt by observing as under:- 6. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to subsequent decisions of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Autokast Ltd. (248 ITR 110) (SC) and Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (227 ITR 172)(SC). In the case of Autokast Ltd., it was observed that interest on money borrowed for purchase of Plant & Machinery and placed in Short Term Deposit with bank till payment was made and used in bill discounting was taxable as income from other sources. In the case of Tuticori…

NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2605/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…7 ITR 172 held that the interest income earned on margin money kept in sale, etc., as revenue receipt by observing as under:- 6. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to subsequent decisions of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Autokast Ltd. (248 ITR 110) (SC) and Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (227 ITR 172)(SC). In the case of Autokast Ltd., it was observed that interest on money borrowed for purchase of Plant & Machinery and placed in Short Term Deposit with bank till payment was made and used in bill discounting was taxable as income from other sources. In the case of Tuticori…

NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2604/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…7 ITR 172 held that the interest income earned on margin money kept in sale, etc., as revenue receipt by observing as under:- 6. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to subsequent decisions of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Autokast Ltd. (248 ITR 110) (SC) and Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (227 ITR 172)(SC). In the case of Autokast Ltd., it was observed that interest on money borrowed for purchase of Plant & Machinery and placed in Short Term Deposit with bank till payment was made and used in bill discounting was taxable as income from other sources. In the case of Tuticori…

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

…held that: “The company may also, as in this case, keep the surplus fund in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interest will be chargeable u/s.56”. To similar effect is the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Autokast Ltd. (2001) 248 ITR 110 (SC) laying down that Interest earned on short-term deposit of amount borrowed for setting up business is assessable to tax in the hands of assessee as income from other sources. 10. Reliance of the ld. AR on CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC) is misplaced. In that case, the assessee, prior to commencement of business and during…

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

…held that: “The company may also, as in this case, keep the surplus fund in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interest will be chargeable u/s.56”. To similar effect is the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Autokast Ltd. (2001) 248 ITR 110 (SC) laying down that Interest earned on short-term deposit of amount borrowed for setting up business is assessable to tax in the hands of assessee as income from other sources. 10. Reliance of the ld. AR on CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC) is misplaced. In that case, the assessee, prior to commencement of business and during…

HIKE PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-6,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2906/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

…chnology cost should not be disallowed.” 12. Thereafter, AO has made further enquiries which read as under :- “Also show cause why the interest earned on surplus funds in FDRs should not be treated as Income from other Sources as decided in 251 ITR 32 (SC)/ 248 ITR 110 (SC) 298 ITR 132 (mad) 3. Please furnish complete set of valuation report, incomplete copy has been filed. 4. Show cause why TDS @ 10% is deducted on OAK Pacific Holdings. Furnish copy of all 15CB attained from Chartered Accountant determining tax rate. Also furnish tax residency certificate of OAK Pacific Holding (Japan). 5. What is the nature o…

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. POSCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 423/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aadcp 6735 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.09/Ctk/2020 (In Ita No.423/Ctk/2019) (In Ita No.423/Ctk/2019) Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aadcp 6735 B Pan/Gir No.Aadcp 6735 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra/Shri A.K.SabatFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (
Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 DCIT, Corporate Circle DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Vs. M/s. POSCO India Pvt Ltd., M/s. POSCO India Pvt Ltd., Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. No.AAD…

ITO (E), WARD- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. SHRI SWAMI SATYANAND DHARMARTH TRUST, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2468/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 70

…ns are as under: i.CIT vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation, 164 ITR 439 (Raj)1987. ii.CIT vs. Shri Plot SwetamaberMurtiPujak Jain Mandal, 211 ITR 293 (Guj) 1995. iii.CIT vs. Matrisewa, Trust, 242 ITR 20 (Mad) 2000 iv.Govindu Naicker Estate vs. ADIT, 248 ITR 110 (Bom) 2003. v. CIT vs. Institute of Banking, 264 ITR 110 (Bom) 2003. vi. DIT vs. Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust, 197 Taxman 170 (Delhi) 2011 4.2.3 In the case of DIT vs. Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High court have held as under: "8. It would be fruitful to refer to the discussions contained in Institute of Banking Pers…

QUADRO INFO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(4), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 2617/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Aug 2021AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

…finery 8s Petrochemicals Ltd., [251 ITR Fertilizers Ltd., [227 ITR 172] (SC), Bongaigaon Refinery 8s Petrochemicals Ltd., [251 ITR Fertilizers Ltd., [227 ITR 172] (SC), Bongaigaon Refinery 8s Petrochemicals Ltd., [251 ITR 329] (SC) and CIT Vs.-Autokast Ltd., [248 ITR 110] (SC) the order of the AO in disallowing Rs.3,85,596 Autokast Ltd., [248 ITR 110] (SC) the order of the AO in disallowing Rs.3,85,596 Autokast Ltd., [248 ITR 110] (SC) the order of the AO in disallowing Rs.3,85,596- of interest income earned on Fixed Deposits and adding back to the total income of the appellant is interest income earned on Fixed…

ACIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2 (1), NEW DELHI vs. SUBROS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7326/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 15Section 70

…. Therefore, assessee is entitled for carry forward 6 and set off excess of expenditure incurred during the year over its income. 4.2.6 Some other decisions on the issue are CIT vs. Matrisewa Trust, 242 ITR 20 (Mad) 2000 and Govindu Naicker Estate vs. ADIT, 248 ITR 110 (Bom) 2003. .2.7 In an appeal filed by the Department in appellant's own case on the issue of carry forward of deficit, the Hon'ble ITAT Bench "G" in ITA No. 1566/Del/2012, vide order dated 10.12.2014 for the assessment year 2008-09 held as under: "Ground No. 2: On the issue raised in this ground, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has followed the ratios…

DCIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAV NIRMAN SEWA SAMITI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 645/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 70

…are as under: i. CIT vs. Maharana ofMewar Charitable Foundation, 164 ITR 439 (Raj) 1987. ii. CIT vs. Shri Plot Swetamaber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal, 211 ITR 293 (Guj) 1995. ill. CIT vs. Matrisewa Trust, 242 ITR 20 (Mad) 2000 w. Govindu Naicker Estate vs. ADIT, 248 ITR 110 (Bom) 2003. v. CIT vs. Institute of Banking, 264 ITR 110 (Bom) 2003. vi. DIT vs. Raghuvanslii Charitable Trust, 197 Taxmann.com 170 (Delhi) 2011 vii CIT vs. Gujarat Samaj, 349 ITR 559 (MP) 2012” 9 ITA No.645/Del./2017 5.1 We find that Ld. CIT(A) while arriving at his finding, has followed decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(2), HYDERABAD vs. ELGEN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 244/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Elgen (India) Pvt Ltd., Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 8520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri M. Poorna Chander Rao Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri M. Poorna Chander RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)

…he assessee even during the construction period on the short- term deposit kept with the bank is assessable as an income which the Assessing Officer has done. 5.8. I also rely on the Hon'ble Court decisions in the following cases: a) CIT Vs. Autokast, (2000) [248 ITR 110] (SC) : The question that was before the High court, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest income is not assessable to tax in the hands of the appellant? The Hon'ble High Court answered the question against the revenue and the department was in appeal by special leave. In reference to the Tuticorin Alkali Chemic…

ANRAK ALUMINIUM LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in foregoing terms

ITA 994/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…he assessee even during the construction period on the short-term deposit kept with the bank is assessable as an income which the Assessing Officer has done. 5.8. I also rely on the Hon'ble Court decisions in the following cases: a) CIT Vs. Autokast, (2000) [248 ITR 110] (SC) : The question that was before the High court, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest income is not assessable to tax in the hands of the appellant? The Hon'ble High Court answered the question against the revenue and the department was in appeal by special leave. In reference to the Tuticorin Alkali Chemic…

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3