CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd.

Shree Sai Sagar Consultants, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

…n Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172, will not be attracted. The more appropriate decision in the ITA. No. 2191//Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 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.” 6.4. Similar views were expressed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Bokaro Steel Ltd reported in 236 ITR 315 (SC) ; Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd vs CIT reported in 251 ITR 329 (SC); Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High C…

DCIT Cent. Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. M/S 63 Moon Technologies India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1509/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit –Cc-8(3) बिधम/ M/S. 63 Moon Room No. 656 6Th Floor, Technologies India Ltd Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ft Tower, Cts No. 256- Mumbai- 400020. 257, Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf5737C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Smt Riddhi Mishra (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: - “1. Whether On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Ao Without Appreciating The Fact He Proportionate Claim Of The Premium On Zccbs Written During The Tenure Of Zero Coupon Convertible Bonds Was Is In Nature Of Interest?" 1.1 “Whether On The Facts & Under The Circumstances The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting Disallowance Without Appreciating The Fact That The Claim

…treatment is not sacrosanct. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases that entries in books of accounts are no; determinative of its tax treatment: * Kedarnath Jute 82 ITR 363(SC) * Godhra Electricity 225 ITR 746(SC) * Bokara Steel 236 ITR 315(SC) * United Commercial Bank 240 ITR 355(SC) The assessee submits that adopting differing treatment in books of accounts and Income Tax Return cannot be equated with shifting stand. The assessee respectfully submits that it has not shifted its stand. What the assessee has done is computed its income as per specific provisions of law 8 A.Y. 2012-…

Sp Jammu Udhampur Highway Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blesp Jammu-Udhampur Highway Pvt Ltd., V. Dcit- Circle-3(3)(2) 41/44, Shapoorji Pallonji Centre Aayakar Bhavan Minoo Desai Marg Mumbai - 400020 Colaba, Mumbai – 400005 Pan: Aaocs5512N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Chulawala Department By : Smiti Samant

…l be treated as Income from Other Sources. The above ratio of Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers has also been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its subsequent decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) (236 ITR 315) (SC) dated 18.12.1998 and above proposition is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT (2001) (119 taxman 488) (SC) dated 24.07.2001 which have been elaborated discussed by CIT(A) in para 3.1.6 to 3.1.8 of his order. These two decisions are also given after 1988 amen…

DCIT- CC- 5(3), Mumbai vs. Irb Jaipur Deoli Tollway Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2542/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-5(3) बिधम/ M/S. Irb Jaipur Deoli Tollway Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Air India Building, Irb Complex, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai- Village, Andheri, East, 400021. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacci1724Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi & Ms. Dhanalaxmi Iyyar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 53, Mumbai Dated 03.06.2021. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Of Rs.4,70,67,196/- Which Was Added By The Ao U/S 56 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

…the interest earned from the FD which was rightly capitalized. This action of the assessee, we note is for the benefit of assessee’s business and the case is covered by ratio of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Limited 236 ITR 315 (SC), and moreover the finding of fact made by the Ld. CIT(A) while giving relief to the assessee has not been challenged before us. Therefore, 8 A.Y. 2012.13 M/s. IRB Jaipur Deoli Tollway Ltd. finds of facts as noted by the Ld. CIT(A) crystalized. Therefore, we fully agree with the view expressed by the Ld. CIT(A) and so we do not give any othe…

DCIT-Ltu - 2, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…ali Chemicals ITA Nos. 1889 and 1241/Mum/2018, 2384, 2958, 3475 and 3843/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 54 of 99 Ltd. in 227 ITR 172; in the case of Godhra Electricity Company in 91 Taxman 91; in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd in 263 ITR 315 and in the case of Sutlet Cotton Mills Ltd. in 116 ITR 1 and submitted that it would be totally incorrect to say that an assessee who raises internal invoices would be entitled to benefit of Sec 80IA and an assessee who does not raise internal invoices would not be entitled to such benefit. 13.2. The assessee further submitted that Sec. 80IA(8) i…

JCIT (OSD) Circle-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tridoss Laboratories Private Ltd., Mumbai

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

…s of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 26 ITR 27; CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas& Co., reported in 46 ITR 144; Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 225 ITR 746; CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd., reported in 236 ITR 315; CIT vs. Sarabhai Holdings Pvt. Ltd., reported in 307 ITR 89, among others. 3.5. The assessee also, on without prejudice basis, submitted that in any case out of the total interest payment of Rs.6.52 Crores, a sum of Rs.1.93 Crores was paid as interest on term loans which could not have been used for granting interest free loans or for any other…