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 367,659 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.

M/S. Shristi Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 395/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 57

…i Hotel Pvt. Ltd., AY- 2012-13 Court found that the deposits made and interest thereon were inextricably linked with setting up of the power plant and, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC) was applicable. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court is as follows: “10. It is important to note that the Tribunal without holding that the finding of fact of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), that the interest earned was " inextricably linked" with the setting up of the power plant reversed the decision of the Commission…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…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.) 11 Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd. 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 R…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bank Note Paper Mill India Pvt Ltd

ITA/690/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…e of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra). The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) was distinguished by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd. ((236 ITR 315)(SC) wherein it was held that the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) is not applicable where interest receipt is directly connected with or incidental to working of construction of the assessee’s plant. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the…

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)

…, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹.62,77,671/-. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By reiterating the submissions as made before the ld. CIT(A) and relying upon the decision in the case of CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315(SC), Vodafone South Ltd. v. CIT 378 ITR 410 (Delhi) and NTPC Sail Power Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 210 Taxman 358, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for deleting the addition made and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below besides placing heavy reliance on the decision…

M/S. Marathwada Auto Cluster, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer

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

ITA 2455/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 234Section 234ASection 25

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण पुणे "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव , लेखा सद"य, के सम"। BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2455/PUN/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Marathwada Auto Cluster, Bajaj Bhawan, Station Road, Aurangabad-431 001. PAN : AAGCM3333D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Aurangabad. ……""यथ" / Respondent Appellant by : Shri S. N. Puranik Respondent by : Shri Pankaj Garg सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pro…

ITO 9(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Commodities Services Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1501/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 2(18)(b)Section 70Section 79

…by the assessee. Accordingly it was submitted that the interest income should be reduced from Capital work in progress as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnal Co- operative Sugar Mills Ltd (243 ITR 2) and Bokaro Steels Ltd (236 ITR 315). 17. The Ld CIT(A) was convinced with the contentions of the assessee and accordingly directed the AO to delete the addition of interest income of Rs.4,74,658/-. The revenue is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A). 18. We heard rival contentions on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has examined the submissions m…

Asst CIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Essar Power Gujarat Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4020/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./4020/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./4019/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 वष" Acit-6(2)(2) M/S. Essar Power Gujarat Ltd. Room No.563, Aayakar Bhavan, Essar House, 11 Kk Marg, Mahalaxmi Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 034. Pan:Aabce 7510 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Virendra Singh अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kishnadwala सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/06/2018 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश धारा के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य ,राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार - Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 23/03/2016 Of The Cit(A)-12,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao)Has Filed Above Appeals.Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Setting Up Of Coal Based Power Plant.As The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar,So,We Are Adjudicating Them Together.Details Of Filings Of Returns,Retunred Incomes,Assessed Incomes Can Be Summar -Ised As Under: Ay. Roi Filed On Returned Income Asst.Date Assessed Income 2011-12 05/09/2011 Rs.3.65 Crores 18/03/2014 Rs.6.99 Crores 2012-13 27/09/2012 Rs.5.44 Crores 29/12/2014 Rs.11.14 Crores

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KishnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Singh
Section 254(1)

…e setting up of the business had to be capitalized and reduced from the balance of 'Capital Work in Progress',that interest income could not be treated as 'Income from Other Sources' chargeable u/s 56 of the Act. She relied upon the cases of Bokaro Steel Ltd.(236 ITR 315),Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (141ITR134),Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd (243ITR2)and Karnataka Power Corpora- tion(247 ITR 268). 4019/M/16 & 4020/M/16(12-13)&(11-12) 4.Before us,the Departmental.Represnetative(DR) supported the order of the AO and stated that he had rightly taxed the interest income under the head income from oth…

Mawana Sugars Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5614/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

…e fact that these amounts had been received after the assessee had started production. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT vs. Bokaro Steels Ltd (236 ITR 315) is applicable to the facts of this case.” 27. Grounds No.1 & 1.1 in CO No.153/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 is reproduced as under :- “1. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the taxability of interest income of Rs.76.10 as income chargeable to tax under the head "income from other sources". 1.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A)…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mawana Sugars Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1479/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

…e fact that these amounts had been received after the assessee had started production. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT vs. Bokaro Steels Ltd (236 ITR 315) is applicable to the facts of this case.” 27. Grounds No.1 & 1.1 in CO No.153/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 is reproduced as under :- “1. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the taxability of interest income of Rs.76.10 as income chargeable to tax under the head "income from other sources". 1.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A)…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mawana Sugars Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1463/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

…e fact that these amounts had been received after the assessee had started production. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT vs. Bokaro Steels Ltd (236 ITR 315) is applicable to the facts of this case.” 27. Grounds No.1 & 1.1 in CO No.153/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 is reproduced as under :- “1. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the taxability of interest income of Rs.76.10 as income chargeable to tax under the head "income from other sources". 1.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A)…

Ideal Toll & Infrastructure P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7758/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…earned on investment of surplus funds shall not take the character of business income and hence the same is required to be assessed under the head income from other sources. In the case of Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (243 ITR 2) and Bokaro Steels Ltd (236 ITR 315), it was held that the interest income earned in connection with the setting up of capital asset or purchase of machinery, the same shall constitute capital receipt and should be reduced from the cost of capital asset. In the case of Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd, the assessee therein opened Letter of Credit for purchase of machinery and fo…

M/S.Rich Prints Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5810/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S. Rich Prints Pvt. Ltd. 416, Diamond Industrial Estate ……………. Appellant Dahisar (East), Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aaecr7205D V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–13(3)(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 115J

…ore the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo 5 M/s. Rich Prints Pvt. Ltd. adjudication keeping in vew the facts and materials on record as well as relevant case laws including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bokaro Steels v/s CIT, 236 ITR 315 (SC). Needless to say, the Assessing Officer must afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds raised are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23.05.2018 MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL SAKTIJIT DEY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL…

M/S Bank Note Paper Mill India Private Limited, Mysore vs. The Income Tax Officer Circle-1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 165/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Guruswamy, CIT (D.R)

…the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra). The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) was distinguished by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd. ((236 ITR 315)(SC) wherein it was held that the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) is not applicable where interest receipt is directly connected with or incidental to working of construction of the assessee’s plant. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bok…

Commissionr of Income Tax IV Ahmedabad vs. Shree Rama Multi Tech. Ltd

C.A. No.-006391-006391 - 2013Supreme Court24 Apr 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

Section 147Section 240

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6391 of 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax­IV, Ahmedabad …..Appellant(s) Versus M/s. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd …..Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8336 OF 2013 J U D G M E N T R.K. Agrawal, J. 1) The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned final judgment and order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Tax Appeal No. 235 of 2012 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by…

ITO 9(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Anchor Residency P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4407/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…e assessee has to be found out and what has accrued must be considered from the point of view of real income taking the probability or improbability of realisation in a realistic manner and dovetailing of these factors..." CIT v/s, Bokaro Steel Ltd. - [(1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC)] Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v/s. CIT- [(1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC)] Accrual must be judged from the real income theory by taking the probability or improbability of realisation in a realistic manner. 4. CIT v/s. VTC Leasing & Finance Ltd. - [(2006) 215 CTR (Raj) 51] [In the context of interest income] Realities of life have to be considered whi…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 6 vs. M/S. Ntpc Tamil Nadu Energy Co. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/233/2018HC Delhi23 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

…sically connected with its business activities. The Assessing Officer (AO) brought to tax its amount as other income. Consequently, the assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who applied the ratio of the Supreme Court’s judgment in CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd., 236 ITR 315. The CIT(A) also noticed that in NTPC SAIL Power Supply Company (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (ITA no. 1238 decided on 17.7.2012), this Court had allowed the assessee’s claim that the interest was inextricably linked to the setting up of the project and therefore, constituted business income. The ITAT concurred with the CIT(A)’s decision in rejecting t…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 6 vs. Mls. Ntpc Tamil Nadu Energy Co. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/234/2018HC Delhi23 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

…sically connected with its business activities. The Assessing Officer (AO) brought to tax its amount as other income. Consequently, the assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who applied the ratio of the Supreme Court’s judgment in CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd., 236 ITR 315. The CIT(A) also noticed that in NTPC SAIL Power Supply Company (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (ITA no. 1238 decided on 17.7.2012), this Court had allowed the assessee’s claim that the interest was inextricably linked to the setting up of the project and therefore, constituted business income. The ITAT concurred with the CIT(A)’s decision in rejecting t…

Diwakar Solar Projects Ltd., (Formerly Known As M/S. Diwakar Solar Projects Pvt.Ltd.), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1219/HYD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 4

…the business. The Profit & Loss el c for the relevant year is enclosed for your kind reference. Therefore, the income earned by the assessee company is of capital in nature.” The assessee relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel ltd., [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation [2001] 247 ITR 268 (SC) 3. NTPC Tamil Nadu Energy Co. Ltd., ITA No. 6016/Del./2013. 4. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, elaborately discussed the issue at length with various case law and confirmed the action of the AO by observing as under: “The consistent line of reasoning…

Diwakar Solar Projects Ltd., (Formerly Known As M/S. Diwakar Solar Projects Pvt.Ltd.), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1218/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 4

…the business. The Profit & Loss el c for the relevant year is enclosed for your kind reference. Therefore, the income earned by the assessee company is of capital in nature.” The assessee relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel ltd., [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation [2001] 247 ITR 268 (SC) 3. NTPC Tamil Nadu Energy Co. Ltd., ITA No. 6016/Del./2013. 4. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, elaborately discussed the issue at length with various case law and confirmed the action of the AO by observing as under: “The consistent line of reasoning…

DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue (ITA No

ITA 49/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1362/Kol/2015& 49/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11& 2011-12) I.T.O Wd-2(3), Kolkata Vs. M/S Kolkata Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 7Th Floor, Hrbc Bhavan, 4Th& 5Th R/No.21, Kol – 69. Floor, Munshi Prem Chand Sarani, Kolkata – 700 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aadck 5313 J (Appellant) .. (Assessee) Appellantby : Shriarindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Assesseeby :Shri Vikash Singhal. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: These Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue,Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11,Aredirected Against The Order Passed By The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1,Kolkata,Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2.Since These Two Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.The Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.1362/Kol/2015, A.Y 2010-11, Is Taken As The Lead Case. 4.The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue (In Lead Case In Ita No.1362/Kol/2015, A.Y 2010-11) Are As Under:

For Appellant: ShriArindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56

…rned in a period prior to the commencement of business, it was in the nature of a capital receipt, and was required to be set off against pre-operative expenses following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC) and Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 167(SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315 (SC), had considered the decision in the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd vs. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 167 and examined the question of treatment of interest received before commencement of productio…