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 367,725 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 199Section 250Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 32Section 194A

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)section 22section 57section 56section 32profits and gains of business or professionadvance taxsection 37(1)revenue expenditureincome from other sourcessection 28section 37

Judgments citing CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd.

I.T.O. Ward -1(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Cmdc Icpl Coal Ltd, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Ito, Ward- 1(1), Cmdc Icpl Coal Ltd., Raipur (Cg). Rajbandha Maidan, G. E. Road, Vs. Raipur (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Laskar, DR

…e matter the ratio laid down by this court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172, will not be attracted. The more appropriate decision in the factual situation in the present case is in CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC). The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.” 17 12. Chhattisgarh Power Ltd. (supra) after considering the various decisions has held that income earned by the assessee from interest on deposits with bank is not taxable in the hands of the assessee as income from other sources and the same was inextricably linked with the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. A.D. Hydro Power Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5007/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…lised then how the corresponding income from the commercial production is treated as revenue. It is also capital in nature which has to be reduced accordingly. This principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Limited 236 ITR 315, wherein it has been held that if the assessee receives any amount which are inextricably linked with the process of setting up its plant and machinery, then such receipts will go to reduce the cost of its assets and would be receipts of a capital nature and cannot be taxed. We are of the view that, if income of Rs. 3.16 crore earned during the t…

Pyramid Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2057/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…ndments in the local laws, even FAR may undergo changes. The assessee relied 13 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Bokaro Steels Ltd., 236 ITR 315 (SC) in which it was held that “unless there is real income, there cannot be any income- tax”. In the case of assessee-company, such right to receive will accrue and will enure to the benefit of the assessee when approval of the GDA is obtained for construction of the relevant FAR space. The assessee-company is regulated by GDA. The consorti…

Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2056/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…ndments in the local laws, even FAR may undergo changes. The assessee relied 13 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Bokaro Steels Ltd., 236 ITR 315 (SC) in which it was held that “unless there is real income, there cannot be any income- tax”. In the case of assessee-company, such right to receive will accrue and will enure to the benefit of the assessee when approval of the GDA is obtained for construction of the relevant FAR space. The assessee-company is regulated by GDA. The consorti…

Saamag Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2054/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…ndments in the local laws, even FAR may undergo changes. The assessee relied 13 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Bokaro Steels Ltd., 236 ITR 315 (SC) in which it was held that “unless there is real income, there cannot be any income- tax”. In the case of assessee-company, such right to receive will accrue and will enure to the benefit of the assessee when approval of the GDA is obtained for construction of the relevant FAR space. The assessee-company is regulated by GDA. The consorti…

Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2053/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…ndments in the local laws, even FAR may undergo changes. The assessee relied 13 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Bokaro Steels Ltd., 236 ITR 315 (SC) in which it was held that “unless there is real income, there cannot be any income- tax”. In the case of assessee-company, such right to receive will accrue and will enure to the benefit of the assessee when approval of the GDA is obtained for construction of the relevant FAR space. The assessee-company is regulated by GDA. The consorti…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (4) vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 97/137 Sl.No CASE LAWS ON REAL INCOME Page No. 39. CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd 236 ITR 315 (SC) 240-245 CASE LAWS ON DIVERSION BY OVERRIDING TITLES Page No 3 CIT Vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas 41 ITR 367 (SC) 12-16 4 CIT Vs. Pompie Tile Works 175 ITR 1 (Kar) 17-19A 5 CTI Vs. Dharma Productions (P) Ltd 153 ITR 105 (Bom) 20-27 6 Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria Vs. CIT 1 ITR 135 (Privy Council) 28-31 9 CIT Vs. Nagarbail Salt-…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 97/137 Sl.No CASE LAWS ON REAL INCOME Page No. 39. CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd 236 ITR 315 (SC) 240-245 CASE LAWS ON DIVERSION BY OVERRIDING TITLES Page No 3 CIT Vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas 41 ITR 367 (SC) 12-16 4 CIT Vs. Pompie Tile Works 175 ITR 1 (Kar) 17-19A 5 CTI Vs. Dharma Productions (P) Ltd 153 ITR 105 (Bom) 20-27 6 Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria Vs. CIT 1 ITR 135 (Privy Council) 28-31 9 CIT Vs. Nagarbail Salt-…

Jorabat Shillong Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 3667/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3667/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ Jorabat Shillong Expressway Ito 14(2)(1) Ltd. (Erstwhile Income Tax Vs. The Il&Fs Financial Center, Officer-10(1)(4) Mumbai Room No. 457, 4Th Floor, Plot No. C-22, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Bandra(E), Mumbai-400051. Karve Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccj3827H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dilip V. Lakhani (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.02.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming That The Interest Income Of Rs.31,13,010/- The Appellant Prays That The Interest Income Earned By The Appellant Amounting To

For Appellant: Shri Dilip V. Lakhani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 234B

…ded by the CIT(Appeals) and tribunal are not under challenge. The CIT(Appeals) and the tribunal have held that in view of the factual position quoted above the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. ITA. No.3667/M/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 / 102 Taxman 94 was applicable as the Commitment Advance, which had been paid to PFC. This is not a case of surplus funds, which were available and investment were made in fixed deposits to earn interest. The interest paid to the power procurement utilities on commitment advances was capitalized. Interest paid and interest received were inextrica…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7241/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…ourse of setting up of the project. We find that the same issue has already been considered by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in A.Y 2000-01 (supra), in which the Tribunal following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd., (236 ITR 315) held that interest on advances to contractors has to adjusted against the cost of the project. However, in so far as the advance to NMPT was concerned the Tribunal observed that the assesses was not the owner of the Jetty to be developed by NMPT for which advances had been given by the assesses and therefore, the interest received on such advanc…

Magnalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(2)

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7133/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…ourse of setting up of the project. We find that the same issue has already been considered by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in A.Y 2000-01 (supra), in which the Tribunal following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd., (236 ITR 315) held that interest on advances to contractors has to adjusted against the cost of the project. However, in so far as the advance to NMPT was concerned the Tribunal observed that the assesses was not the owner of the Jetty to be developed by NMPT for which advances had been given by the assesses and therefore, the interest received on such advanc…

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

…and this is "inextricably linked" to the setting up of the business. Such income is to be treated as capital receipt is required to be capitalized to be set off against pre- operative expenses.(case laws attached for reference)(CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd.(1999) 236 ITR 315 Supreme Court, Pr. CIT Vs FACOR POWER LTD ITA 1011/2015, Jdg.07-01-2016, HC Delhi and etc) • Hence, the amount which is deposited in our banks shall not be seen as borrowed funds as in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd v. CIT (1997) 22 7 ITR 172 (SC) (as this is a revenue nature income and taxable as per SC).In Akali CFL…

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

…and this is "inextricably linked" to the setting up of the business. Such income is to be treated as capital receipt is required to be capitalized to be set off against pre- operative expenses.(case laws attached for reference)(CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd.(1999) 236 ITR 315 Supreme Court, Pr. CIT Vs FACOR POWER LTD ITA 1011/2015, Jdg.07-01-2016, HC Delhi and etc) • Hence, the amount which is deposited in our banks shall not be seen as borrowed funds as in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd v. CIT (1997) 22 7 ITR 172 (SC) (as this is a revenue nature income and taxable as per SC).In Akali CFL…

Eco Axis Systems P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 730/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2008 - 09 M/S. Eco Axis Systems Private Dy Cit Range 2(1), Limited, Mumbai Vs. 43, Dr. V B Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400 023. Pan Aaacf8154H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Mihir ShahFor Respondent: Shri V Justin
Section 143(3)

…f ` 59,20,846/- were from trial/demo products/machines and, therefore, credited to Product Development Expenditure as it was the during the development period of the product. The assessee has relied on couple of decisions viz. CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (SC) 236 ITR 315; Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. vs. ITO 315 ITR 255 (Del) to defend its case. The submissions of the assessee did not find favour with the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer treated the sale as sale of fully developed machines as per the alterations required to suit the buyer. The Assessing Officer also distinguished the 4 Eco…

M/S H.P. Power Corporation Ltd, Shimla vs. DCIT, Shimla

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

ITA 948/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj, CIT DR

…8 of its order as under: “8. So far as the second issue relating to the taxation of Misc. income is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) following the same ratio and while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd., 263 ITR 315 (SC) held that the receipts of any amount which are inextricably linked with the process of setting up of plant and machinery, will go to reduce the cost of the assets. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Misc. income earned by the assessee were linked to the investment made in the course of setting up of the project and, hence, were required to be…

DCIT, Shimla vs. M/S Hp Power Corporation Ltd., Shimla

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

ITA 942/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj, CIT DR

…8 of its order as under: “8. So far as the second issue relating to the taxation of Misc. income is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) following the same ratio and while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd., 263 ITR 315 (SC) held that the receipts of any amount which are inextricably linked with the process of setting up of plant and machinery, will go to reduce the cost of the assets. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Misc. income earned by the assessee were linked to the investment made in the course of setting up of the project and, hence, were required to be…

International Coal Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3689/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 International Coal Ventures Pvt. Ito, Ward- 12(3), Ltd., New Delhi. 20Th Floor, Scope Minar, Vs. Core-2, North Tower, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Goyal, CA

…l nature resulting in abatement of Expenses During Construction, including the interest on borrowings for the new unit, Capitalized-during the period 2 of setup of industry rather than the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Cit Vs Bokaro Steels Ltd. 236 ITR 315 and Bongaigon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd., 251 ITR 239 which were followed by the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in a number of cases.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in preparing feasibility and financial viability report for setting up the business of Coal and Mine in Australia and Mozambique.…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…ht in law in substituting his own view for the view taken by the Assessing Officer in the matter. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following orders: 1. CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144(SC) 2. CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315(SC) 3. United Phosphorus Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2002] 81 ITD 553(Ahd.) 4. Asstt. CIT v. Premier Consolidated Capital Trust India Ltd. [2004] 4 SOT 793(Mum.) 5. Wallfort Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd. v. ITO [2005] 96 ITD 1(Mum.)(SB) 6. Order dated 16-5-2005 passed by "G" Bench Mumbai of the Tribunal in Red Rose Enterprise v. CIT [IT Appeal No. 117 (Mu…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. Sears Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6975/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, M/S. Sears Construction Central Circle-1(2), बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Room No.906, Pratishtha 514, Dalamal Towers, Vs. Bhavan, 10Th Floor, Old 211, Nariman Point, Cgo Building Annexe, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs5289E

…ject development expenses and in the balance sheet, it was shown as project development expenses. The assessee borrowed the funds from the bank and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) considering the decision in the case of CIT vs Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315(Supreme Court), CIT vs Maharashtra Electrosmelt Limited 214 ITR 489(Bom.), CIT vs A.P. Forest Development Corpo. 171 ITR 663(A.P.), Sanam Progetti S.P.A. vs Addl. CIT 132 ITR 70 (Del.), Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. vs Income 7 M/s Sears Construction Pvt. Ltd. Tax Officer 181 taxman 249 (Del.) and another decision from Hon'ble Che…

M/S Jaypee Powergrid Ltd.M, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5489/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Anil Chopra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

…e interest earned by the appellant is inextricably linked with the implementation of the transmission-line project and is a capital receipt which only offsets the cost of the project. 5) The appellant's case is governed by the rule in Bokaro Steel Ltd [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC) and followed in Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd v. ITO 315 ITR 255 (Del).” 2.4 The assessee has also filed an additional ground in the appeal which reads as under:- “That without prejudice to the main ground that the interest income on FDRs during project implementation period is a capital receipt, Ld. Assessing Officer has erred…