CIT v. Autokast Ltd.

248 ITR 110Supreme Court of India2001#2893 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 366,339 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.

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Triumph Realty Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6597/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri A.N. Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)

…of construction without considering various decisions of the Courts including the following: - (i) Tuticorin Alkali Chemical and Fertilizers Limited Vs. CIT(SC) 227 ITR 172 (ii) CIT Vs Coromandal Cements Ltd. (SC) 234 ITR 412 (iii) CIT Vs Autokast Ltd. (SC) 248 ITR 110 (iv) CIT Vs Kishan Sahakari Chini Mills (All) 280 ITR 617 (v) CIT Vs Manipur Spinning Mills Corpn. Ltd. (Gau) 226 ITR 551.” 3. The facts, in brief, qua the issue involved, are that the assessee company was in process of construction of a hotel and has filed its return of income declaring income of Rs.1,20,744/- on 29.09.2012. The assessee compan…

ACIT-17(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Urban Infrastructure Fund, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4871/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4871/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit-17(2) बिधम/ Maharashtra-Urban Infrastructure Fund O/O Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Cr-2 Bldg, Ground Floor, Income Tax-17(2), Aayakar Barrister Rajni Patel Road, Bhavan, Room No.123A, 1St Nariman Point, Mumbai- Floor, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400021. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabtm8094M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri J. P. Bairagra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 23.05.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -57, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri J. P. BairagraFor Respondent: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (SR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4871/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) ACIT-17(2) बिधम/ Maharashtra-Urban Infrastructure Fund O/o Asstt. Commissioner of Vs. Cr-2 Bldg, Ground Floor, Income Tax-17(2), Aayakar Barrister Rajni Patel Road, Bhavan, Room No.123A, 1st Nariman Point, Mumbai- Floor, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400021. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABTM8094M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (SR. AR) Assessee by: Shri J. P. B…

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 4(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2538/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2538/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Corporate Ward – 4(2), Md Chambers, New No.53, Chennai – 34. Dr.R.K. Salai, Mylaypore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Aaacn 9369E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Bharath,Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath,CIT
Section 36(1)Section 56Section 57

…of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. M/s. Bokaro Steel Ltd, 236 ITR 315 and M/s. Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., 234 ITR 2. However the Assessing Officer relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Autokast Ltd., 248 ITR 110 and Tutikorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., 227 ITR 172 and assessed the income U/s.56. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, holding that the AO has countered the decisions relied on by the assessee, which have binding nature. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this…

Hll Biotech Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, WD-1(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Stay Petitions filed

ITA 578/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…18 Thus, it is clear that whenever interest is received during preproduction stage from short term deposits, same has to be taxed as income from other sources. This decision has been again followed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Autokast Ltd. [248 ITR 110]. The head note of this decision reads as under- “From the decision of the Kerala High Court (1998) (229 ITR 789) holding that where the assessee kept the money borrowed from the Industrial Development Bank of India for purchase of plant and machinery in short- term deposits in banks and used it in bill discounting until payment for the plant an…

Hll Biotech Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, WD-1(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Stay Petitions filed

ITA 577/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…18 Thus, it is clear that whenever interest is received during preproduction stage from short term deposits, same has to be taxed as income from other sources. This decision has been again followed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Autokast Ltd. [248 ITR 110]. The head note of this decision reads as under- “From the decision of the Kerala High Court (1998) (229 ITR 789) holding that where the assessee kept the money borrowed from the Industrial Development Bank of India for purchase of plant and machinery in short- term deposits in banks and used it in bill discounting until payment for the plant an…

Hll Biotech Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, WD-1(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Stay Petitions filed

ITA 576/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…18 Thus, it is clear that whenever interest is received during preproduction stage from short term deposits, same has to be taxed as income from other sources. This decision has been again followed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Autokast Ltd. [248 ITR 110]. The head note of this decision reads as under- “From the decision of the Kerala High Court (1998) (229 ITR 789) holding that where the assessee kept the money borrowed from the Industrial Development Bank of India for purchase of plant and machinery in short- term deposits in banks and used it in bill discounting until payment for the plant an…

DCIT (E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Project Concern Intl., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2678/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 70

…as under:- i) CIT vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation, 164 ITR 439 (Raj) 1987. ii) CIT vs. Shri Plot Swetamaber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal, 211 ITR 293 (Guj) 1995. (iii) CIT vs. Matrisewa Trust, 242 ITR 20 (Mad) 2000 Govindu (iv) 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 Taxmann 170 (Delhi) 2011 (vii) CIT vs. Gujarat Samaj, 349 ITR 559 (MP) 2012 4.3 After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that even though there is no merit in the submissions of the assessee a…

Mjsj Coal Limited, Angul vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 107/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.429/Ctk/2016, 68/Ctk/2017 & 107/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys :2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Mjsj Coal Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Dhenkanal / At/Po:Balanda, Talcher, Ito, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Dist-Angul, Odisha-759116 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm 1095 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-1&3, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.04.2016, 04.11.2016 & 04.12.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0120/2014-15, 0472/15-16 & 0254/16-17, For The Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014- 2015. 2. Since Issues The Above Appeals Are Common, Therefore, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Shall Take Up Assessee’S Appeal I.E. Ita No.429/Ctk/2016 For Assessment Year 2011-2012 & The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- Ground Of Appeal • We Are Not Agreeing With The Computation Of Tax On Interest Earn By Company Made By Assessing Officer. • During The Assessment, The Cases We Submitted To Justify Our Claim (As Mentioned In Statement Of Facts) Has Not Been Paid Any Emphasis For Deciding The Case By The A.0 & Cit (Appeal- 3),Bhubaneswar. On The Other Hand The A.0 & Cit (Appeal-3) Finally Imposed His Decision Based On The Facts Of Alkali Tuticorin Chem. & Fertilizers Ltd. In Which It Has Earned Interest On The Funds, Were Borrowed Funds Only

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, CITDR

…year 2002-03. As mentioned hereinabove the Assessing Officer applied the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd.'scase (supra) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Autokast Ltd. [2001] 248 ITR 110 and held that the interest which accrued to the assessee was assessable under the head "income from other sources" and could not be set-off against pre-operative expenses as claimed by the assessee. 3.4 Aggrieved by the order the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) examined the facts in detail. It is pertinent to note that the…

Mjsj Coal Limited, Angul vs. ITO, Ward-2, Dhenkanal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 429/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.429/Ctk/2016, 68/Ctk/2017 & 107/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys :2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Mjsj Coal Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Dhenkanal / At/Po:Balanda, Talcher, Ito, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Dist-Angul, Odisha-759116 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm 1095 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-1&3, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.04.2016, 04.11.2016 & 04.12.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0120/2014-15, 0472/15-16 & 0254/16-17, For The Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014- 2015. 2. Since Issues The Above Appeals Are Common, Therefore, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Shall Take Up Assessee’S Appeal I.E. Ita No.429/Ctk/2016 For Assessment Year 2011-2012 & The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- Ground Of Appeal • We Are Not Agreeing With The Computation Of Tax On Interest Earn By Company Made By Assessing Officer. • During The Assessment, The Cases We Submitted To Justify Our Claim (As Mentioned In Statement Of Facts) Has Not Been Paid Any Emphasis For Deciding The Case By The A.0 & Cit (Appeal- 3),Bhubaneswar. On The Other Hand The A.0 & Cit (Appeal-3) Finally Imposed His Decision Based On The Facts Of Alkali Tuticorin Chem. & Fertilizers Ltd. In Which It Has Earned Interest On The Funds, Were Borrowed Funds Only

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, CITDR

…year 2002-03. As mentioned hereinabove the Assessing Officer applied the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd.'scase (supra) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Autokast Ltd. [2001] 248 ITR 110 and held that the interest which accrued to the assessee was assessable under the head "income from other sources" and could not be set-off against pre-operative expenses as claimed by the assessee. 3.4 Aggrieved by the order the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) examined the facts in detail. It is pertinent to note that the…

Ambuja Cement India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

…Supreme Court had held that interest on fixed deposits [out of investment of borrowed funds] prior to commencement of business is assessable u/s 56. The ratio of this decision was again approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Autocast Ltd [2001] 248 ITR 110 (SC) wherein it was held that interest earned on short term deposits in banks is assessable as income from other sources u/s 56. The ratio of Supreme Court decision in these two cases were applied by various other courts in the cases of CIT V/s Gimpex P Ltd [2004] 268 ITR 377 (Mad); Chandpur Sugar Company Ltd V/s CIT [2006] 280 ITR 612 (All); Fer…

Express Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 930/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.930/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Express Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Express Estates, No. 2, Club House Vs. Income Tax, Road, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002. Company Circle Ii(1), [Pan: Aabce5521G] Chennai. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 30.12.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Interest Receipt Of ₹.62,77,671/- Is Income & Is To Be Assessed As Income From Other Sources.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below besides placing heavy reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT (supra) and in the case of CIT v. Autokast Ltd. 248 ITR 110 (SC). 6. We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The assessee was incorporated with the objective of promoting commercial buildings. Initially, an extent of 10.64 acres was taken on lease from Express Newspapers Pvt. 4 I.T.A. No.930/Chny/17 Ltd. and subsequently surr…

Safeflex International Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

ITA 696/JPR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur. Appeal Against The Order U/S 143(3) Was Partially Dismissed By Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Vide Order Dated 04-04-2016. The Said Order Was Received By The Company On 17-04-2016 & Accordingly, It Was Supposed To File The Appeal Within 60 Days I.E. By16-06-2016. The Present Appeal Is Delayed By 22 Days.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT - DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 43BSection 68Section 69

…e earned on deposits is to be taxable as income form other sources u/s 56 of the Act. Similar view has also been expressed in other decisions particularly Apex Court’s decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkalies and Fertilizers and also in CIT vs Auto Kast Ltd 248 ITR 110 (SC), CIT vs V. Goppinathan, Consolidated Fibres vs CIT and K Ravindranatham v/s DCIT (Asstt.) 262 ITR 669. All the above judicial pronouncement support the view that the interest income is income from other sources. This issue was also raised during the scrutiny assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2009-10 wherein the AO has held that interest on FDR…

DCIT (Exemption), New Delhi vs. Subros Educational Society, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 6240/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Joginder Singh, Jm Ita No. 6240/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Subros Educational Society, Tax(E), Circle-2(1), G-71, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadts2161F Assessee By : Sh. Salil Agarwal, Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.11.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 21.09.2016 By Ld. Cit(A)-40, Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 70

…a of Mewar Charitable Foundation, 164 ITR 439 (Raj) 1987. 4 Subros Educational Society ii) CIT vs. Shri Plot Swetamaber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal, 211 ITR 293 (Guj) 1995. (in) 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, 264ITR 110 (Bom) 2003. (vi) DIT vs. Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust, 197 Taxmann 170 (Delhi) 2011 vii) CIT vs. Gujarat Samaj, 349 ITR 559 (MP) 2012 3.3 After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that even though there is no merit in the submissions of the assessee as…

Rewas Ports Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 758/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr.P.Danial
Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)Section 57

…40 ITR 24, C.LT V/s Kisan Sahakari Genie bills (All) 280 ITR 617, Chanderpaul sugar: company Ltd versus C.LT (All) 280 ITR 612, Bokaro steel Ltd versus CIT (patna) 170 ITR 545, CIT versus Coromandel Siemens Ltd (SC) 234 ITR 412, C.LT versus auto cast Ltd (SC) 248 ITR 110, Consolidated fibers and chemicals Ltd versus CIT (Cal) 273 ITR 353, Skayef Ltd versus DCIT (ITAT, Bangalore) 71 ITD 419, Godavari fertilisers and chemicals Ltd versus CIT (AP) 198 ITR 388 and CIT versus Hindustan Electro graphite's Ltd (MP) 177 ITR 465, CIT versus Tamil Nadu industrial development Corporation Ltd (Mad) 189 ITR 670, CIT versus ne…

Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2298/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No 2298/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Coastal Gujarat Power Limited, The Income Tax Officer 34, Sant Tukaram Road, 6(2)(1), फनाभ/ Carnac Bunder, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400009 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 अऩीराथी की ओय से / Applicant By : Shri Farrokh V Irani प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri M C Omi Ningshen सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of : 15.3.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated25.2.2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee Is Against Upholding The Order Of Assessing Officer As Regards Interest Income From Securities Deposited With Paschim Gujarat Vij Co.Ltd (Hereinafter Referred To As Pgvcl) For Availing Electricity For The Purposes Of Construction Of Power

For Respondent: Shri M C Omi Ningshen
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “एच” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No 2298/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Coastal Gujarat Power Limited, The Income Tax Officer 34, Sant Tukaram Road, 6(2)(1), फनाभ/ Carnac Bunder, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400009 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 अऩीराथी की ओय से / Applicant by : Shri Farrokh V Irani प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent by : Shri M C Omi Ningshen सुनवाई की तायीख /Date of Hearing : 14.12.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of : 15.3.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / O…

ITO (Exemptions), New Delhi vs. Pearey Lal Bhawan Association, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2548/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: SH. R.M. MEHTA, CAFor Respondent: SH. AMRIT LAL, SR. DR
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 70

…as under:- i) CIT vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation, 164 ITR 439 (Raj) 1987. ii) CIT vs. Shri Plot Swetamaber Murti Pujak Jain Mandai, 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 Taxmann 170 (Delhi) 2011 vii) CIT vs. Gujarat Samaj, 349 ITR 559 (MP) 2012 4.3 After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that even though there is no merit in the submissions of the assessee a…

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer

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

ITA/1156/2007HC Delhi26 Feb 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Mr B.B. Ahuja, Sr. Advocate withFor Respondent: Ms Prem Lata Bansal & Mr Mohan Prasad
Section 260A

…- in the assessment year 2002-03. As mentioned hereinabove the Assessing Officer applied the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals (supra) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Autokast Ltd; (2001) 248 ITR 110 and held that the interest which accrued to the assessee was assessable under the head “income from other sources” and could not be set off against pre- operative expenses as claimed by the assessee. 3.4 Aggrieved by the order the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) examined the facts in detail. It is pertinent to note…

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer

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

ITA/1157/2007HC Delhi26 Feb 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Mr B.B. Ahuja, Sr. Advocate withFor Respondent: Ms Prem Lata Bansal & Mr Mohan Prasad
Section 260A

…- in the assessment year 2002-03. As mentioned hereinabove the Assessing Officer applied the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals (supra) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Autokast Ltd; (2001) 248 ITR 110 and held that the interest which accrued to the assessee was assessable under the head “income from other sources” and could not be set off against pre- operative expenses as claimed by the assessee. 3.4 Aggrieved by the order the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) examined the facts in detail. It is pertinent to note…

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer

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

ITA-1156/2007HC Delhi26 Feb 2009
For Appellant: Mr B.B. Ahuja, Sr. Advocate withFor Respondent: Ms Prem Lata Bansal & Mr Mohan Prasad
Section 260A

…- in the assessment year 2002-03. As mentioned hereinabove the Assessing Officer applied the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals (supra) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Autokast Ltd; (2001) 248 ITR 110 and held that the interest which accrued to the assessee was assessable under the head “income from other sources” and could not be set off against pre- operative expenses as claimed by the assessee. 3.4 Aggrieved by the order the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) examined the facts in detail. It is pertinent to note…

Indian Oil Panipal Power Consortium Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer

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

ITA-1157/2007HC Delhi26 Feb 2009
For Appellant: Mr B.B. Ahuja, Sr. Advocate withFor Respondent: Ms Prem Lata Bansal & Mr Mohan Prasad
Section 260A

…- in the assessment year 2002-03. As mentioned hereinabove the Assessing Officer applied the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals (supra) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Autokast Ltd; (2001) 248 ITR 110 and held that the interest which accrued to the assessee was assessable under the head “income from other sources” and could not be set off against pre- operative expenses as claimed by the assessee. 3.4 Aggrieved by the order the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) examined the facts in detail. It is pertinent to note…