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 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.

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rohtak Panipat Tollway Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1938/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R
Section 271Section 56

…Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 255 (Del.) I.T.A No. 1938/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 4 Dy. CIT vs. M/s. Rohtak Panipat Tollway Pvt. Ltd. (iii) NTPC Sail Power Company Pvt. Ltd. ITA 1238/2011 (Del. HC) (iv) Bokaro Steel Limited - 236 ITR 315 (SC) (v) Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemical Co. Ltd. 251 ITR 329 (SC) However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: In the present case of the appellant company, as discussed in the foregoing paras, the construction of the project was in progress and there was no commencement of any business activities d…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat vs. J K Paper Limited, Surat

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 181/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) D.C.I.T. M/S J.K. Paper Ltd. Circle-1(1)(2), P.O. Central Pulp Mill, Vs. Surat. Fort Songadh, Surat. Pan : Aaact 6305 N Appellant Respondednt

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 145ASection 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 40aSection 80I

…sed u/s 143(3) of the Act and on the other hand, depreciation has been allowed by A.O on enhanced project cost in order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y 2015-16. The assessee also relied on the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Bokaro Steel Ltd (236 ITR 315-SC). 9. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee held that the assessee raised loan of Rs. 239.19 Crore through FCCB for the purpose of expansion of unit in Rayagada Odhisa. The amount was parked in fixed deposit of bank and earned interest of Rs. 10,36,47,628/-. The assessee instead of ITA 181/SRT/2020 DCIT Vs J K Paper Lt…

M/S Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 350/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 348, 349 & 350/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited House No.382, Sunder Nagar, Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc4374P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer 3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, Dr

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAMLAPPA D BATTULL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 348, 349 & 350/RPR/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 CMDC ICPL Coal Limited House No.382, Sunder Nagar, Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) PAN : AADCC4374P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer 3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.B Doshi, CA Revenue by : Shri G.N Singh, DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing :10.02.20…

M/S Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 349/BIL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 348, 349 & 350/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited House No.382, Sunder Nagar, Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc4374P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer 3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, Dr

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAMLAPPA D BATTULL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 348, 349 & 350/RPR/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 CMDC ICPL Coal Limited House No.382, Sunder Nagar, Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) PAN : AADCC4374P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer 3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.B Doshi, CA Revenue by : Shri G.N Singh, DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing :10.02.20…

M/S Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 348/BIL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 348, 349 & 350/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited House No.382, Sunder Nagar, Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc4374P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer 3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, Dr

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAMLAPPA D BATTULL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 348, 349 & 350/RPR/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 CMDC ICPL Coal Limited House No.382, Sunder Nagar, Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) PAN : AADCC4374P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer 3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.B Doshi, CA Revenue by : Shri G.N Singh, DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing :10.02.20…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Samruddhi Cement Limited (Since Amalgamated Into M/S.Ultratech Cement Limited), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5318/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2011-12
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43B

…Ltd., decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kadernath Jute Manufacturing Company Ltd 82 ITR 362; in the case of Tutcorin Alali Chemicals 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) it…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Samruddhi Cement Limited (Since Amalgamated Into M/S.Ultratech Cement Limited), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4835/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2010-11
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43B

…Ltd., decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kadernath Jute Manufacturing Company Ltd 82 ITR 362; in the case of Tutcorin Alali Chemicals 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) it…

ACIT- 14 (1) (2), Mumbai vs. Urjankur Shree Tatyasaheb Kore Warna Power Co, Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground nos

ITA 1420/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Kabra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 14Section 56(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1421/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2013-14) ACIT, Circle-14(1) (2), Room No. 455, 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/s Urjankur Shree Tatyasaheb Kore Warna Power Co. Ltd., C-22, G-Block, the IL&FS Financial Centre, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. PAN: AABCU0254A ..... Respondent Appellant by : Sh. S.N. Kabra, Sr. DR Respondent by : None Date of hearing : 31/03/2022 Date of pronouncement : 08/04/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOY…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Wind Power Sankonahatti Athni Private Limied, Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 34/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 56

…diciary held in the case of all the assessees that the interest income earned on idle funds has to be treated as revenue receipts by observing as under: “8. To sum up, it is worthwhile to mention here that the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v Bokaro Steel Ltd 236 ITR 315 has been rendered in a context where advances were given to the contractors to enable them to purchase plant and machinery which were to be used in the project and interest was received on those advances. Some buildings belonging to the assessee were let out to the contractors for rent so that the labourers employed by the contractors can be hous…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Wind Energy Halagali Benchi Private Limied, Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 33/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 56

…diciary held in the case of all the assessees that the interest income earned on idle funds has to be treated as revenue receipts by observing as under: “8. To sum up, it is worthwhile to mention here that the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v Bokaro Steel Ltd 236 ITR 315 has been rendered in a context where advances were given to the contractors to enable them to purchase plant and machinery which were to be used in the project and interest was received on those advances. Some buildings belonging to the assessee were let out to the contractors for rent so that the labourers employed by the contractors can be hous…

Mmrf Reality and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4 (1), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 627/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.627/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mmrf Realty & Infrastructure Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., No. 21, Indira Nagar, Income Tax, 1St Avenue, Adyar, Corporate Circle -4(1), Chennai – 600 020. Chennai. [Pan: Aahcm1575E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 20.12.2017 In Ita No. 162/15-16 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Enhancing The Assessment Is Wrong, Illegal, Unjust, Arbitrary & Is Liable To Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 35D

…unds sourced were utilized. Thus, we are of the opinion that the assessee has invested amounts received which are inextricably linked with the process of setting up of its business as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd (236 ITR 315) which was followed in the case of CIT vs. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (243 ITR 2). Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the interest allowed on fixed deposits before the commencement of the project shall be reduced from the cost of the project and thereby, the decision of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside on this issue. 12. In the…

63 Moons Technologies Ltd. (Formerly Known As Financial Technologies (India) Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. - 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4775/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan A.KariaFor Respondent: Shri Vatsalya Saxena
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 40Section 92C

…eatment is not sacrosanct. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases that entries in books of accounts are not 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 independent…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

ITA/118/2015HC Karnataka23 Nov 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 10(35)Section 260

…], Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., supra, as well as Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2001) 251 ITR 329 (SC) and Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd., reported in (1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC), has held thus:- “In the light of the judgments referred to above, we have examined the case on hand. It is clear that the assessee has received the grant of Rs.10 crores from the Government of Karnataka for a particular project i.e., for improvement of infrastructure and to promote export of horticultural produce. Before the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

ITA/117/2015HC Karnataka23 Nov 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 10(35)Section 260

…], Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., supra, as well as Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2001) 251 ITR 329 (SC) and Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd., reported in (1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC), has held thus:- “In the light of the judgments referred to above, we have examined the case on hand. It is clear that the assessee has received the grant of Rs.10 crores from the Government of Karnataka for a particular project i.e., for improvement of infrastructure and to promote export of horticultural produce. Before the…

Lhotse Developers and Traders Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy It 12(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 542/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Lhotse Developers Vs. Dcit – 12(3)(2) & Traders Pvt Ltd., Room No. 147B, 1St Hotel Grand Hometel, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Cts No. 406/11, 4Th Mk Road, Mkumbai – Floor, Raheja 400020. Chambers, Linking Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400054. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcl0079N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojary. ARFor Respondent: Shri Mehul B. Jain. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…cs (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2019] 109 taxmann.com 105 (Mum-Trib). 3. NTPC Sail Power Company P Ltd, Vs CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 401 (Del). 4. Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd., Vs. ITO [2009] 181 taxmann 249 (Delhi). 5. CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd., [1999] 102 Taxmann 94 (SC). 6. CIT Vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers Pvt Ltd., [2006] 281 ITR 346 (Delhi). 9. For the brevity purpose we refer to the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay decision in the case of CIT Vs. Lok Holdings [2010] 189 taxmann 452 held as under: In the instant case, income from interest, admittedly, arose out of running business of the assessee. In…

Conwood Realty P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -Circle-12(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 727/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Conwood Realty Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle-12(1)(2) Yashodham, D.B. House, Gen. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, A.K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 (East), Mumbai – 400063 Pan No. Aadcc2501Q (Assessee) (Revenue) C.O. No. 55/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 6447/Mum/2019) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Circle-12(1)(2) M/S Conwood Realty Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 128D, 1St Floor, Aayakar Vs. Yashodham, D.B. House, Gen. Bhavan, Churchgate, A.K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon Mumbai 400020 (East), Mumbai – 400063 Pan No. Aadcc2501Q (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A.R Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…trade by the assessee, therefore, the profit/surplus arising therefrom was liable to be assessed as its business income. As regards the reliance placed by the ld. A.R on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC), the same too being distinguishable ITA No.727/Mum/2021 & 6447/Mum/2019 & C.O. 55/M/2021 25 M/s Conwood Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1)(2) on facts would not assist the case of the assessee. In the said case the assessee was in receipt of income from letting out quarters to employees of contractors who were engaged in construction…

DCIT - 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6426/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6425/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6426/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 1140/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Maharashtra Tourism Tax, Circle 1(2)(2), Development Corporation Room No. 535, 5 Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd. फनाभ/ Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 C.D.O. Hutments, Opp. Lic 020 Bldg, Mada Cama Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacm0712G अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Mamta Bansal, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Anil Sathe, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 27.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-8, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora; Ay 10-11 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/It-365 & 366/15-16, Cit(A)- 2/It/10479/2016-17 Vide Dated 07.08.2017, 17.12.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(2), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2014-15 Vide Order Dated 01.03.2013, 27.03.2015, 28.12.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Mamta Bansal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sathe, AR
Section 143(3)

…lkata Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (175 ITD 347) • Vizhinjam International Seaport ltd. VS Income-tax Officer 76 taxmann.com 380 In the alternative, and without prejudice to above, Interest to be reduced from the cost of the asset • CIT VS Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315 Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora; AY 10-11 Principle of Consistency • CIT VS Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 • Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321) 10. Upon careful consideration, we find that learned CIT(A) has taken a correct view of the matter. The Government directive which has been relied upon by him is duly applicable for the current assess…

M/S. Ganpati Global Private Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward1(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 302/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

…of ACIT vs. Z Square Shopping Mall P Ltd held the interest earned as being ‘Income from other sources’ The assessee had placed reliance on decisions of various High Courts as also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Limited 236 ITR 315 to support its contention that the said funds 4 M/s Ganpati Global (P) Ltd. vs. ITO were temporarily available idle funds which were invested in short term deposits, before they could be used in the setting-up of business/ construction of assets for business purposes. 6. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) while trying to distinguish the case…

DCIT - 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals stand dismissed

ITA 6423/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

…Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (175 ITD 347) • Vizhinjam International Seaport ltd. VS Income-tax Officer 76 taxmann.com 380 In the alternative, and without prejudice to above, Interest to be reduced from the cost of the asset • CIT VS Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315 Principle of Consistency • CIT VS Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 • Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321) 10. Upon careful consideration, we find that learned CIT(A) has taken a correct view of the matter. The Government directive which has been relied upon by him is duly applicable for the current assessment year. As per the said direction…

ITO, Ward- 13(1), New Delhi vs. Nabinagar Power Generating Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 4748/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 5Section 56

…5 ITA No.4748/Del./2017 and A.Y. 2012-13 was also deleted by CIT(A) in the appellant's own case. However, miscellaneous income of Rs. 1,61,296/- on account of sale of scrap etc. is also covered by Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 5,91,25,630/- is hereby deleted. These grounds of appeal are therefore allowed.” 3. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. The Learned Department Representative, relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that money was raised by way of share capital which was not specifically linke…