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 367,541 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.

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Porbandar Solar Power Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6539/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…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. [1999J 236 ITR 315 (SC).” 3.4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC) had decided the issue which has been relied upon by the AR. The head note of the judgement is reproduced as under: "In case money is borrowed by a a newly started company which is in the process of constructing and erecting its plant, the i…

Mumbai Integrated Sez Ltd ( Formelry Known As Gujarat Positra Port Infrastructures Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3928/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, DR
Section 234Section 234BSection 57

…28/Mum/10 A.Y. 2004-05 [Mumbai Integrated SEZ Ltd. vs. DCIT] Page 3 linked with the development of entire project and hence should be reduced from the Capital Work in progress. e. The ratio laid down by the decision of the Supreme Court in Bokaro Steel Ltd. (236 ITR 315) is squarely applicable to the facts of the Appellants case. GROUND III WITHOUT PRJUDICE TO GROUND II ABOVE, 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - V, erred in upholding the order of AO, in disallowing expenditure in respect of interest and bank charges on LC & BG amounting to Rs. 12,26,209/- on the alleged ground that the expenditure is…

ACIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Etisaltat DB Telecom P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7544/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी. एन एन. "साद "साद,"याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी एन एन "साद "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/7544/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ACIT-12(2)(1) M/s. Etisalat DB Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Room No.363, 3rd Floor, (Formerly known as Swan Capital Pvt. Aayakar…

Joynest Prremises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6717/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 6718/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) वष" Joynest Premises Pvt. Ltd. Ito, 5(3)(4), R. No.565 बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Cts No.469-A, Near Jain Temple, Aayakar Bhavan, R.C. Marg, Chembur, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 071. Mumbai-400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacz 3360M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Asghar Zain सुनवाई क" तारीख / : 08/06/2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख / : 15.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Above Titled Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Of Even Date 14.08.2014 Relevant To A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Asghar Zain
Section 143

…nds in its hands and in order to earn income out of the surplus funds the same were invested for the purpose of earning interest income. Further in the case of the assessee, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd’ [236 ITR 315] was applicable wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in somewhat similar circumstances has held that where the utilization of various assets of the company and the payments received from such utilization are directly linked with the activity of setting up the business of the assessee and such receipts are inextricably linked with the setting up o…

ITO 9(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Whistling Woods Internaitonal P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as dismissed

ITA 5919/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. 5919/Mum/2012 & I.T.A. No.5918/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2004-05) Income Tax Officer 9(3)(4) M/S. Whistling Woods बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Room No.216B, International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 6, Bashiron, 28Th Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400020 Tps-Iii, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw4307R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…eriod. There is no change in respect of figure debited from interest on fixed deposits, loans and advances and mutual funds. It was only the case of difference of opinion wherein the claim made by the appellant is based upon the CIT Vs Bokaro Steel Ltd.[1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC) where the department decided the matter by relying upon the decision of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals [1997] 227 ITR 172. No doubt in the said circumstances it is clearly the change of opinion with regard to the claim raised by the assessee and it cannot considered to furnish the inaccurate Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2004-05 particulars of inc…

ITO 9(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Whistling Woods Internaitonal P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as dismissed

ITA 5918/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. 5919/Mum/2012 & I.T.A. No.5918/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2004-05) Income Tax Officer 9(3)(4) M/S. Whistling Woods बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Room No.216B, International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 6, Bashiron, 28Th Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400020 Tps-Iii, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw4307R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…eriod. There is no change in respect of figure debited from interest on fixed deposits, loans and advances and mutual funds. It was only the case of difference of opinion wherein the claim made by the appellant is based upon the CIT Vs Bokaro Steel Ltd.[1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC) where the department decided the matter by relying upon the decision of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals [1997] 227 ITR 172. No doubt in the said circumstances it is clearly the change of opinion with regard to the claim raised by the assessee and it cannot considered to furnish the inaccurate Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2004-05 particulars of inc…

DCIT 22(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Sky Star, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2237/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Sky Star, Skyline Oasis, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Premier Road, Nr. Vidyabihar Income Tax, Range 22 Station, Ghatkopar (W), (2), Mumbai Mumbai 400086 Pan: Abcfs 0618M Appellant .. Respondent The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sky Star, Skyline Oasis, Income Tax, Range 22 (2), Premier Road, Nr. Vidyabihar Mumbai Station, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400086 Pan: Abcfs 0618M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By Shri Naresh Jain, Ar Revenue By None

Section 143

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM M/s. Sky Star, Skyline Oasis, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Premier Road, Nr. Vidyabihar Income Tax, Range 22 Station, Ghatkopar (W), (2), Mumbai Mumbai 400086 PAN: ABCFS 0618M Appellant .. Respondent The Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Sky Star, Skyline Oasis, Income Tax, Range 22 (2), Premier Road, Nr. Vidyabihar Mumbai Station, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400086 PAN: ABCFS 0618M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by Shri Naresh Jain, AR Revenue by None Date of hearing 22-04-2016 Date of pronouncement 11-05-2016 O…

Sky Star, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2012/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Sky Star, Skyline Oasis, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Premier Road, Nr. Vidyabihar Income Tax, Range 22 Station, Ghatkopar (W), (2), Mumbai Mumbai 400086 Pan: Abcfs 0618M Appellant .. Respondent The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sky Star, Skyline Oasis, Income Tax, Range 22 (2), Premier Road, Nr. Vidyabihar Mumbai Station, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400086 Pan: Abcfs 0618M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By Shri Naresh Jain, Ar Revenue By None

Section 143

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM M/s. Sky Star, Skyline Oasis, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Premier Road, Nr. Vidyabihar Income Tax, Range 22 Station, Ghatkopar (W), (2), Mumbai Mumbai 400086 PAN: ABCFS 0618M Appellant .. Respondent The Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Sky Star, Skyline Oasis, Income Tax, Range 22 (2), Premier Road, Nr. Vidyabihar Mumbai Station, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400086 PAN: ABCFS 0618M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by Shri Naresh Jain, AR Revenue by None Date of hearing 22-04-2016 Date of pronouncement 11-05-2016 O…

Island Star Mall Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5460/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Bhanwan Singh Ratnoo (DR)
Section 143(3)

…said factual position, in my view, the income on FDRs is required to be capitalized to be reducd from the capital work-in-progress, and is fully covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s Bokaro Steel Ltd., [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC), and not by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. (supra), as contended by the Revenue. The distinction in the application of the two aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been aptly brought out by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium L…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/S TNS India [Pvt] Ltd

ITTA/378/2010HC Telangana01 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ntpc Tamil Nadu Energy Company Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6016/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Agarwal, CA &
Section 1Section 5Section 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6016/Del./2013 Asstt. Year : 2010-11 A.C.I.T., Circle 13(1), vs. NTPC Tamil Nadu Energy Co. Ltd., New Delhi. NTPC Bhawan, Core-7, Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. [PAN: AABCN 9916C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR Respondent by : Sh. Ajay Agarwal, CA & Sh. Saurabh Agarwal, CA Date of hearing : 17.12.2016 Date of pronouncement : 15.02.2016 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member: This appeal by the Revenue is directed agains…

DCIT 5(3), Mumbai vs. Vadinar Power Co.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6861/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6861/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ M/S Vadinar Power Co. Tax -5(3), Ltd., V. 573, Aayakar Bhavan, 15, Essar House, 5 Th Floor, 11, Keshavrao Khadye Mumbai 400 020. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400 034. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacv5226C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 57Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “F” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6861/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम/ M/s Vadinar Power Co. tax -5(3), Ltd., v. 573, Aayakar Bhavan, 15, Essar House, 5 th floor, 11, Keshavrao Khadye Mumbai 400 020. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400 034. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAACV5226C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue by Shri Airju Jaikumar Assessee by : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 12-01-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 29…

International Seaports (Haldia) Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward - 12(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1194/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2004-05 International Seaports V/s. Income Tax Officer, (Haldia) Pvt. Ltd. Ward-12(3), Aaykar C/o. Shri Somnath Ghosh, Bhavan, P-7, Advocate, Seventh Chowringhee Square, Brothers Lodge, P.O. Kolkata-700 069 Buroshibtala, P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly, Pin 712 105 [PAN No.AAAACI 9468 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Debasish Banerjee, JCIT-SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 10…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Facor Power Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1011/2015HC Delhi07 Jan 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr Zoheb Hossain for Mr Rohit MadanFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 260A

…be set of against pre-operative expenses?” ITA 1011/2015 Page 9 of 13 The Division Bench considered the decisions of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd (supra) and CIT v. Bokaro Steel Limited: (1999) 236 ITR 315. The Division Bench held as under:- “5. In our opinion the Tribunal has misconstrued the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals (supra) and that of Bokaro Steel Ltd. (supra). The test which permeates through the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals (supra) is that if fu…

Addl CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Petrikum India International, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of revenue are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6421/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4439,4657&4658/Mum/2009

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 91Section 91(1)

…iew of the 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 Bokaro Steel Ltd [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC). (emphasis supplied) In view of the abovementioned categorical observations of the Supreme Court, I consider that the appellant deserves the benefit of the ratio of the abovementioned Supreme Court decision in 243 ITR 2 in which Tuticorin Alkali case 227 ITR 172 has been referred and correctly distinguished. The Supreme Court has also observ…

Addl CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Petroleum India International, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of revenue are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2686/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4439,4657&4658/Mum/2009

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 91Section 91(1)

…iew of the 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 Bokaro Steel Ltd [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC). (emphasis supplied) In view of the abovementioned categorical observations of the Supreme Court, I consider that the appellant deserves the benefit of the ratio of the abovementioned Supreme Court decision in 243 ITR 2 in which Tuticorin Alkali case 227 ITR 172 has been referred and correctly distinguished. The Supreme Court has also observ…

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Petroleum India Internaitonal, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of revenue are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6322/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4439,4657&4658/Mum/2009

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 91Section 91(1)

…iew of the 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 Bokaro Steel Ltd [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC). (emphasis supplied) In view of the abovementioned categorical observations of the Supreme Court, I consider that the appellant deserves the benefit of the ratio of the abovementioned Supreme Court decision in 243 ITR 2 in which Tuticorin Alkali case 227 ITR 172 has been referred and correctly distinguished. The Supreme Court has also observ…

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Petroleum India International, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of revenue are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1741/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4439,4657&4658/Mum/2009

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 91Section 91(1)

…iew of the 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 Bokaro Steel Ltd [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC). (emphasis supplied) In view of the abovementioned categorical observations of the Supreme Court, I consider that the appellant deserves the benefit of the ratio of the abovementioned Supreme Court decision in 243 ITR 2 in which Tuticorin Alkali case 227 ITR 172 has been referred and correctly distinguished. The Supreme Court has also observ…

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Petroleum India International, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of revenue are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4658/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4439,4657&4658/Mum/2009

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 91Section 91(1)

…iew of the 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 Bokaro Steel Ltd [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC). (emphasis supplied) In view of the abovementioned categorical observations of the Supreme Court, I consider that the appellant deserves the benefit of the ratio of the abovementioned Supreme Court decision in 243 ITR 2 in which Tuticorin Alkali case 227 ITR 172 has been referred and correctly distinguished. The Supreme Court has also observ…

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Petroleum India International, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of revenue are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4657/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4439,4657&4658/Mum/2009

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 91Section 91(1)

…iew of the 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 Bokaro Steel Ltd [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC). (emphasis supplied) In view of the abovementioned categorical observations of the Supreme Court, I consider that the appellant deserves the benefit of the ratio of the abovementioned Supreme Court decision in 243 ITR 2 in which Tuticorin Alkali case 227 ITR 172 has been referred and correctly distinguished. The Supreme Court has also observ…