How many judgments cite CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd.?

370 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (236 ITR 315), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37(1), Section 143(3), Section 199, Section 250, Section 142(1), Section 143(2).

CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd.

236 ITR 315Supreme Court of India1999#200 most cited

What is CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. authority for?

Interest earned during the pre-commencement period of a project, on advances made to contractors or on unutilized borrowed funds, if inextricably linked to the setting up of the plant, constitutes a capital receipt. Such interest is not taxable as income but can be reduced from the capital work-in-progress.

370

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,735 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. · 236 ITR 315 · pre-commencement interest · capital receipt · income from other sources · unutilized borrowed funds · advances to contractors · capital work-in-progress · Section 56 · Section 28 · setting up of plant

Also reported as

102 Taxmann 94

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 199 Section 250 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 32 Section 194A

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)section 22 section 57 section 56 section 32 profits and gains of business or profession advance tax section 37(1)revenue expenditure income from other sources section 28 section 37

Judgments citing CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd.

Dlf Info City Developers (Kolkata) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- I, Gurgaon

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

ITA 894/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Dlf Info City Vs. Acit Development (Kolkata) Circle- I Limited, 3Rd Floor, Shopping Gurugram Mall Complex, Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, Gurugram Pan No. Aabcd9621N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 57Section 80I

…lied on the following decisions :- a. Pr. CIT Vs. Jubilant Energy Nelp V P Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 97 (Del) b. Vodafone South Ltd. Vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 410 (Del) c. ITO Vs. M/s. Brahma Associates (ITA 133/PN/13) (ITAT pune) d. CIT Vs. Bokaro Steels Ltd. 236 ITR 315 (SC) 15. The ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). She submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not introduced any new source of income and has only recalculated / recomputed such income. Further the Ld. CIT(A) has given valid reasons as to why such interest income cannot be treated as “business income” and why principle o…

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

…, scrap sales, etc., U/s.56. The Assessing Officer has also noted that the assessee is still in the stage of setting up of its manufacturing unit. The assessee relied on the decisions 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.C…

Pawansut Dwellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 10(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 317/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: S/shri. Uttam Chand Bothra&

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 57

…uced from the capitalized amount of pre-operative expenses (including interest paid). In order to drive home his aforesaid contention, the ld. A.R had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC). We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid claim of the ld. A.R and find the same to be absolutely misconceived and misplaced. In the case before the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bokaro Steel Ltd. (supra), it was observed, that as the amounts received by the assessee company prior to its commencement of business from viz. letting ou…

M/S Tenughat Emta Coal Mines Ltd., Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Ranchi

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

ITA 56/RAN/2015[07-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Manish Mallick Adv & L.N.Mallick, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 148

…ed assets, therefore, there was no reason to believe that any income had escaped assessment. Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the case of the assessee is further supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bokaro Steels Ltd., 236 ITR 315 (SC). Ld counsel reiterating the earlier submission, submitted that in the case of assessee’s sister concern, i.e. Panel Coal Mines Ltd(supra) on similar facts and circumstances, Hon’ble Delhi High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the interest income has rightly been adjusted against the cost of project as the…

Cavalcade Properties P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 12(1)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4030/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am& Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4030/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…receipts. The expression 'profits' or 'gains' is not limited to business only, but is used in the Act with reference to other sources of income as well." (emphasis Supplied) The above High Court decision has been subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court in 236 ITR 315. 63 I.T.A. No. 4030 & 4273/Mum/2017 M/s Cavalcade Properties Pvt. Ltd. 34. After perusing the above judicial pronouncements, we are in agreement with the fact that there has to be reasonable certainty of realization of consideration or significant risk must pass to the intended buyer, since these basic terms are missing in the initial stage of p…

Gspc Pipavav Power Company Ltd.-Gppc, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1613/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar &For Respondent: Shri/Ms. Sonia Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…,319/- as income inextricably linked with the process of setting up the project which has yet not commenced i.e. considered as capital receipt relying on the decision of Supreme Court of India in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC). 1.3 The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in stating that for the interest income of Rs. 21,36,319/- the facts of the case of Tuticorm Alkalies are squarely applicable to interest income received on FDRs and thereby grossly erred in making addition of the interest income of Rs. 21,36,319/-. 1.4 The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate tha…

B. Jeejeebhoy Vakaharia & Associates, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 3657/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3657/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2006-07) B. Jeejeebhoy Vakharia & Associates Income Tax Officer-12(3)4 बनाम/ 83, Jolly Maker Chamber Ii 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafb-7376-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D.V. Lakhani-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri K. Madhusudhan-Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 01/10/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ():- 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2006-07 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-23 Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-23/12(3)(4)/It- 376/2010-11 Dated 22/11/2011 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri D.V. Lakhani-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan-Ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 40Section 40ASection 69Section 69C

…ity carried out by the assessee. Therefore, these receipts would go on to reduce the cost of project and therefore, the same has rightly been deducted from WIP account. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315. However, the said submissions could not find favor with Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the action of Ld. AO in treating the scrap sale as business income. 3.2 Regarding disallowance of 20% of cash expenditure u/s 40A(3), the assessee submitted that it did not carry out any business activity and no income was computed under the head Profits & Gains of Bus…

ACIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Essar Power Orissa Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is also dismissed

ITA 1504/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh (DR)For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta (AR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…f income so earned was not accepted by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer treated the same as Income from ‘Other Sources’. The ld. CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee followed the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [236 ITR 315 (SC)] and CIT vs. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. [243 ITR 2(SC), wherein it was held that such interest received partake the character of capital receipt. 7. We have noted that in assessee’s group case in ACIT vs. Essar Power Gujrat Ltd.(supra), in ITA No. 4019,4020/Mum/2016, the coordinate bench of Tribunal in order dated 01.06.2018 on…

DCIT Cent.Cir-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.International Mineral Trading Co. Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 615/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 615/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Kumar PadmapaniFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kabra, AR

Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 615/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s International Mineral DCIT Cen Cir -1(4) Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 902, Pratistha बिधम/ 51/53, A Wing, Mittal Bhavan, 9th floor, Old Vs. Court, J. B. Marg, Nariman CGO Building, Annexe, Pint, Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AABCI8504K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, DR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Gaurav Kabra…

DCIT, Circle-10(1) vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corp. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4432/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

…DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4432/DEL/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/DEL/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02) Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corpn. Tax, Limited, NBCC Place, Cir.10(1), Room No. 406, Bhishma Pitamah Marg, C.R.Building, IP Estate, Pragati Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. No. 1153/DEL/2009 (A.Y. 2003-04) M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Limited, Metro Bhawan, 13 Delhi-IV , Fire Brigade Lane New Delhi Barakhamba Road New Delhi-110…

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1153/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

DCIT, Circle-10(1) vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4433/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Adani Mining Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed whereas the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1972/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1972/Ahd/2015 With C.O. 155/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T, Adani Mining Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3(2), Vs. (Now Merged With Adani Ahmedabad. Enterprises Ltd.) 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Nr. Mithkhali Six Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aagca5276M

For Appellant: Shri

Section 145ASection 56

…it expenses or the income is that the same should be directly connected and have a live link with the project. 6.1 In holding so, we find support and the strength from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. reported in 236 ITR 315 wherein the income such as rental charges, machine higher charges, and interest income, etc were reduced from the cost of the project as these incomes were directly connected with the business of the assessee. 6.2 Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 227 ITR 172 has…

Western Drilling Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO Ward3(5), Noida

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3642/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Western Drilling Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, Plot No.1A, Institutional Area, Ward-3(5), Sector-16A, Noida, Noida. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Aaafw5961A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate Revenue By Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2019 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2018 Of The Cit(A)-1, Noida, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal 1, 2 & 3 Which Are Corelated Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts, In Law & In Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Confirming The Assessment Of Interest Of Rs.27,82,217/- Earned On Fixed Deposits Placed As Margin Money With Bank For Issuance Of Bank Guarantee For Oil Blocks, A "Income From Other Sources" On The Ground That Margin Money Placed With The Bank For Issuance Of Guarantees Is Not A Pre-Condition For Set Up Of Business Of The Appellant. 2. On The Facts, In Law & In Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Fixed Deposits Placed As Margin Money With Bank For Issuance Of Bank Guarantee Could Not Be Held To Be Intrinsically Connected With The Business Of The Appellant. 3. Without Prejudice, On The Facts, In Law & In Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Allowing Deduction Of Proportionate Interest Expense Of Rs.49,07,818/- Incurred Directly & Exclusively Towards Earning Aforesaid Interest Income.”

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate

…lization of the assets. The margin money was not an asset of the business, but, a mere condition for borrowing money and, therefore, the facts of the case of the assessee are entirely different from those in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 236 ITR 315 (SC). Distinguishing the various decisions cited before him the ld.CIT(A) observed that the commercial business of the assessee was not yet commenced and the margin money was required by the bankers to lend money to the assessee to provide necessary guarantee was not a necessary pre-condition for setting up of the business of the assessee and th…

The Indian Film Combine P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 16, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1985/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Film Combine Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-16 Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Room No.442, Aayakar 1St Floor, Maker Tower „F‟ Bhawan, M.K. Road, Cuffe-Parade, Mumbai- Mumbai. 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaaci3611E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash Jothwani (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.01.2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “I. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -16 ("Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit"), Ignoring The Relevant Facts On Record, Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Holding That The Assessment Order Passed By The Ito 16(1)(5) ("Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned Ao") U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 26.12.2016 Is Erroneous So As To Be Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue & Directing The Ao To Decide All The Issues Afresh. The Appellant Submits That The Order U/S.263 Of The Act For Modifying The Order U/S.143(3) Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Illegal, Ultra-Virus, In Excess Of And/Or In Want Of Jurisdiction & Otherwise Void. 2. The Pcit Failed To Appreciate That The A.O. While Passing Order U/S 143(3) Has Considered The Facts Of The Case & Had Taken The Legally Correct View. The Pcit Erroneously Observed That There Is At Least Some

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jothwani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…id interest is capital receipt and to be set off against the preoperative expenses. However, in this regard, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Indian Oil Panipat Power Const. Ltd. (315 ITR 255)(Del), Bokaro Steel Ltd. (236 ITR 315) (SC), Karnal Co-op. Sugar Ltd. (243 ITR 2)(SC) & Gujarat Power Corpn. Ltd. (354 ITR 201)(Guj). The legal proposition is not in dispute. But this fact came into notice that the issue has been examined by AO while passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. The reply was given vide letter dated 16.08.2016, 30.11.2016 & 09.12.2016 lies at page no. 52…

Volkswagen India Private Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1883/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Danesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad

Section 3Section 4

…perbook). VW stated that it reserved it right to claim such interest income as not taxable under the Act, inter alia, based on any subsequent judicial pronouncement. It is submitted that subsequently, Hon’ble SC in the case of CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC) and CIT vs. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills (2000) 243 ITR 2 (SC) distinguished the Tuticorin Alkali (supra) decision and held that incidental income earned during the pre-commencement period need not be treated as revenue income if the same is inextricably linked to setting-up of the business and such revenue can be adjusted against the cos…

ACIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal raised by the

ITA 3951/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhacit, Cc-6(4), M/S Arshiya Ltd. Room No. 32(1), Ground 308, Level 3, Ceejay House, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, F Block, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent Dcit Cc-6(4), M/S Arshiya International Ltd. Room No. 32(1), Ground 7Th Floor, Twin Arcade, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, C Wing, Military Road, M.K. Road, Marol Maroshi, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. [Formerly Dcit Cc-6(4), Known As Arshiya International Room No. 32(1), Ground Vs. Ltd.] 3021, Ceejay House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Level-3, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, F-Block, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. [Formerly Dcit Cc-6(4), Known As Arshiya International Room No. 32(1), Ground Vs. Ltd.] 3021, Ceejay House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Level-3, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, F-Block, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018. M/S Arshiya International Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Mukundraj Chare

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

…sing officer be restored. 51. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of Assessing Officer. The ld. AR submits that the grounds of appeal raised by revenue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Bokaro Steel (236 ITR 315) wherein it was held that the amounts directly connected to an incidental to construction of plant by assessee and interest earned on advances to contractor is a capital receipt and not the income from independent sources. In support the submission, the ld. AR relied upon the decisions of CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315 (SC), Indian Panip…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sentia Power Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA number 146/Del/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 1461/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisentia Power Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Known As Indiabulls Ward-11(4), Cseb Bhiyathan Power Ltd), New Delhi M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sentia Power Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Circle 23(2) Indiabulls Cseb Bhiyathan New Delhi Power Ltd), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr DR

…able when required for purchase of land and infrastructure development and, hence, the interest earned was 'inextricably linked' with the setting up of the power plant. He, therefore, applied the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v.Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 / 102 Taxman 94 and allowed the claim of the assessee by directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition and to consider the same for capitalization towards pre-operative expenses. On the revenue's appeal, the Tribunal, following decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172 / 93 Taxman 502 (SC] revers…

M/S. Sentia Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, ITA number 146/Del/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 3498/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr DR

Pune Sholapur Road Dev. Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. I.T.O. - 10(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6674/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negipune Sholapur Road Dev.Co.Ltd. Vs. Ito-10(1)(3) Room No.461, 4Th Floor The Il &Fs Financial Center Plot No.C-22, G Block Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Bandra Kurla Complex , Mumbai-400 020 Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp1669Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…T 191 ITR 359 (Bom) ii. Shree Krishna Pollyster Ltd. Vs DCIT 274 ITR 21 (Bom) iii. CIT Vs Ravi Ratna Exports Pvt.Ltd. 246 ITR 443 (Bom 5.2 Further I have gone through the decision relied by the assesee. In respect of decision in the case the Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315, the assessee had received interest from the contractor to whom advance was given to facilitate the construction work. Therefore, the fact of the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd, is not relevant to this case as advances given in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd. was a business obligation. 6. In view of the above decision and the facts of the case ,after exa…