CIT v. Coromandel Industries Ltd.

370 ITR 586High Court2015#4349 most cited

What is CIT v. Coromandel Industries Ltd. authority for?

Investment in bonds for Section 54EC deduction made within six months from the date of transfer of the original asset is considered proper, even if made in different financial years.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Coromandel Industries Ltd. · section 54EC · long-term capital asset · date of transfer · investment in bonds · six months from transfer · AY 2015-16 · Finance Act 2014

Issues it is cited on

section 54esection 54eclong-term capital assetdate of transfersection 54transfersection 143prescribedsection 14section 143(3)business

Judgments citing CIT v. Coromandel Industries Ltd.

Falubai M Jain, Mumbai vs. Aciat Cir 16(2) Now 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10

ITA 134/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfalubai M. Jain, Flat No.25,8Th Floor, Matru Mandir, 278, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 4007 Pan:Admpj 8215 ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri D.B. Sanghvi & Rakesh SakariaFor Respondent: Ms Anu Kirishna Agarwal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54E

…e of exemption under section 54EC of the Act on similar facts and circumstances as in the case on hand and cover the issue squarely in favour of the assessee :- (i) CIT vs.C. Jaichander (2015) 370 ITR 579(Mad.); (ii) CIT vs. Coromandal Industries Ltd. (2014) 370 ITR 586(Mad); (iii) Dr. Kumar M. Dhawale vs. ACIT- 11(2) (ITA No.7585/M/2012 dated 9/10/2015); (iv) JNR Securities Broking Ltd.(ITA No.6987/Mum/2013 dated 8/07/2015); (v) Vivek Jairozbhoy vs. DCIT (ITA No.236/Bang/2012 dated 14/12/2012). 6.2 Per contra, the ld.DR for the Revenue supported the order of the authorities below on this issue. 6.3.1 We have…

Shivkumar Mirchandani, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7054/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 54E

…re under section 54EC, in ITA No.7054/Mum/14 A.Y. 08-09 [Mr. Shivkumar Mirchandani vs.ITO] Page 4 respect of investment of Rs. 50 lakhs made in two different financial years.” 4.1 Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. Coromandel Industries Ltd. [2015] 370 ITR 586 (Mad) held that assessee will be entitled for long term capital gain, even if, investment is falling under two financial years. In view of this, we are not in agreement with finding of CIT(A) on the ground that assessee has invested amounts in two financial years. We are aware the amendment on the issue is perspective not retrospective. Assessing…

P.V.Gopalakrishna, Vellore vs. ACIT, Vellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2254/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 54E

…e and apply from 01.04.2015 effective from assessment year 2015-16 onwards. We considering the facts and amendment of provisions rely on the jurisdictional High Court decision of CIT vs. C. Jaichander 370 ITR 579 (Mad) and CIT vs. Coramandel Industries Ltd 370 ITR 586 (Mad) and setaside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition and allow the grounds in favour of the assessee. The second ground raised by the assessee is that 9. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in enhancement of income on investments made by the assessee’s two minor…

P.R.Viswanath, Vellore vs. ACIT, Vellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2274/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 54E

…2015. :- 8 -: from 01.04.2015 effective from assessment year 2015-16 onwards. We considering the facts and amendment of provisions rely on the jurisdictional High Court decision of CIT vs. C. Jaichander 370 ITR 579 (Mad) and CIT vs. Coramandel Industries Ltd 370 ITR 586 (Mad) and setaside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition and allow the grounds in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 8. No.2274/Mds/2015 is allowed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 27th day of April, 2016, at Chennai. (चं" पूजार") (ज…

Shah Textile P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3731/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri S.C. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal
Section 115JSection 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.3731/Mum./2013 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) M/s. Shah Textile Pvt. Ltd. C/o Suren Shah & Co. 111, Maker Bhavan–3 ……………. Appellant 22, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020 PAN – AAACS6979D v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–5(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Assessee by : Shri S.C. Tiwari Revenue by : Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal Date of Hearing – 18.02.2016 Date of Order – 29.02.2016 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. This is an appeal by the a…

DCIT vs. Treads Direct Limited, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2941/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Philip George, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)

…14 :- 23 -: assessee company is concerned the law prevailing on the date of transaction shall apply and supported with judicial decisions of the Madras High Court in the cases of CIT vs. C. Jaichander 370 ITR 579 (Mad) and CIT vs. Coromandel Industries Ltd. 370 ITR 586 (Mad) and pleaded to dismiss Revenue appeal. 8.5. We heard the rival submissions of both the parties, perused the material on record and also judicial citations quoted. The assessee has invested in long term capital gains within six months from the date of transfer u/s.54EC of the Act in National Highway Authority of India capital gain bond…

Treadsdirect Limited, Coimbatore vs. JCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2794/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Philip George, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)

…14 :- 23 -: assessee company is concerned the law prevailing on the date of transaction shall apply and supported with judicial decisions of the Madras High Court in the cases of CIT vs. C. Jaichander 370 ITR 579 (Mad) and CIT vs. Coromandel Industries Ltd. 370 ITR 586 (Mad) and pleaded to dismiss Revenue appeal. 8.5. We heard the rival submissions of both the parties, perused the material on record and also judicial citations quoted. The assessee has invested in long term capital gains within six months from the date of transfer u/s.54EC of the Act in National Highway Authority of India capital gain bond…