CIT v. Franco Tosi Ingegneria

241 ITR 268High Court2000#15410 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 68

Issues it is cited on

personindiabusinessinterest

Judgments citing CIT v. Franco Tosi Ingegneria

M/S. Trac Media Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle-20(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1306/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1305/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1306/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2016-17 M/S.Trac Media Pvt Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of No.35, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kalaimagal Nagar, Corporate Circle-20(1), Ekkattuthangal, Chennai. Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aadct4184G] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit(Virtual) & Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT(Virtual) &
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56

…) were issued did not respond. In support of its contentions, the Ld.Counsel for issue of preoperative expenses, relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Franco Tosi Ingegneria as at Page - 2 - of 8 ITA Nos.1305 & 1306/Chny/2025 241 ITR 268, of Delhi High Court in the case of Samsung India Electronic as at 360 ITR 354 as well as of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarabhai Management Corporation as at 192 ITR 151. It was argued that the impugned cases support the assessee’s claims. As regards the issue of sundry creditors the Ld.Counsel argued that it has all the evidence in its…

M/S. Trac Media Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle-20(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1305/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1305/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1306/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2016-17 M/S.Trac Media Pvt Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of No.35, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kalaimagal Nagar, Corporate Circle-20(1), Ekkattuthangal, Chennai. Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aadct4184G] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit(Virtual) & Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT(Virtual) &
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56

…) were issued did not respond. In support of its contentions, the Ld.Counsel for issue of preoperative expenses, relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Franco Tosi Ingegneria as at Page - 2 - of 8 ITA Nos.1305 & 1306/Chny/2025 241 ITR 268, of Delhi High Court in the case of Samsung India Electronic as at 360 ITR 354 as well as of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarabhai Management Corporation as at 192 ITR 151. It was argued that the impugned cases support the assessee’s claims. As regards the issue of sundry creditors the Ld.Counsel argued that it has all the evidence in its…

Mumbai Sez Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

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

ITA 7022/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7022/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Mumbai Sez Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-39 1St Floor, Jai Centre, 34, Mumbai Vs. P.D. Mello Road, Opp. Red Gate, Masjid, Mumbai- 400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcg2739C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By: Shri A. K. Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.03.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.11,26,507/- Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ita. No.7022/Mum/2013 A.Y. 2007-08 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.41,02,40,470/- Claimed Under Section 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Each One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal Is Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Kardam (DR)
Section 10(35)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263Section 57

…Without prospecting and without examining whether particular precious stones/minerals, were available in a particular area, it is not possible to undertake mining activities …………. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Franco Tosi Ingegneria (2000) 241 ITR 268 considered that assessee has commenced its business from the time it opened its site office and allowed the expenditure under section 37(1). In view of the principles decided in above cases, we are of the opinion that the assessee's activities of prospecting which is a permitted activity by the FIPB in which the assessee ITA. No.7022/Mum/2013 A.…

Mumbai Sez Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

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

ITA 4852/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4852/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4853/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Mumbai Sez Limited बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-39 1St Floor, Jai Centre, 34 P. D. Aayakar Bhavan, Ground Vs. Mello Road, Opp. Red Gate, Floor, Mumbai-400020. Masjid, Mumbai-400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcg2739C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Rahul Raman (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2009-10. Ita. No.4852/M/2014 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.01.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-41

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 57

…Without prospecting and without examining whether particular precious stones/minerals, were available in a particular area, it is not possible to undertake mining activities …………. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Franco Tosi Ingegneria (2000) 241 ITR 268 considered that assessee has commenced its business from the time it opened its site office and allowed the expenditure under section 37(1). In view of the principles decided in above cases, we are of the opinion that the assessee's activities of prospecting which is a permitted activity by the FIPB in which the assessee has considerable expertis…

M/S Maruti Inssurance Broking Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6442/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aagcm8887L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Ms Tejasvi Jain, Ca, Ms Somya Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Bimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th October, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-6, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Soliciting Motor Insurance Business. It Was Incorporated On 24.11.2010 & Applied For Grant Of Direct Broker Licence To Irda, Vide Application Dated 01.12.2010 & Was Awarded Licence As A Direct Broker Of Irda In February, 2012. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th September, 2012 Declaring An Income Of Rs.23,750/- & Claiming Current Year Loss Of Rs.2,78,22,376/-.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Bimal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…are: 301 ITR 368 (Del.) 2. CIT vs. Hughes Escort Communications: 311 ITR 253 (Del.) 3. Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. CIT: 26 ITR 151 (Bom.) 4. Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT: 416 ITR 343 (Mad) 5. CIT vs. Franco Tosi Ingegneria: 241 ITR 268 (Mad.) 6. Religare Macquarie Wealth Management Ltd v. ACIT: 2396/Del/2013 (Del. Trib.) 7. DCIT v. Gujarat Nre Coke Limited: 115 TTJ 822 (Kol Trib.) 8. DCIT v. PPFAS Asset Management (P.) Ltd.: 176 ITD 541 (Mum. Trib.) 9. He accordingly submitted that since the business of the assessee has already been set up, therefore, the expenditure incurred…

Carefour Wc&C India Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/42/2014HC Delhi22 Sept 2014
Section 260ASection 28Section 43D

…014:DHC:4885-DB ITA No. 42/2014 Page 11 of 23 (xii) CIT Vs. Samsung India Electronics Limited, 356 ITR 354 (xiii) CIT Vs. Franco Tosi Ingegnaria, 241 ITR 268 (xiv) CIT Vs. Western India Seafood (P) Ltd., 199 ITR 777 (xv) CIT Vs. Saurashtra Cement & Chemicals Industries Ltd., 91 ITR 170 8. On the other hand, Mr. Rohit Madan would support the judgment of the Tribunal and contends that this Court would not like to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the three authorities. According to…

CIT v. Franco Tosi Ingegneria (241 ITR 268) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax