CIT v. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd.

343 ITR 108High Court2012#7877 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd.

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1782/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 The The Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Vs. M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., Income Tax, Company Circle Income Tax, Company Circle- Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Iii(2), New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Iii(2), New Block, 4 No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai Mahatma Mahatma Gandhi Gandhi Road, Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai Nungambakkam, Chennai Pan/Gir No.Aaacs 7032 B Aaacs 7032 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Ar Revenue By : Dr. S.Palanikumar, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24 /2/ 2022 2 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/4/20 /2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg, Jm , Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palanikumar, CIT (
Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…ounsel for the assessee has plalced on the following decisions: “1. Synco Industries Ltd vs AO, 299 ITR 444 (SC) 2. CIT vs Mohan Brewaries and Distilleries Ltd., 92CCH17(Che) 3. CIT vs KEI Indusrtries Ltd., 373 ITR 574 (Del) 4. CIT vs Galaxy Surfactants Ltd., 343 ITR 108 (Del) 5. TCA No.448 of 2019 remanding the matter in ITA No.1782/Mds/2012 11. Ld counsel by referring to para 7 of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries Ltd(supra) submitted that sub-section (1) of section 80A of the Act lays down that while computing the total income of an assessee, deductions specified in section…

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1650/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT–DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90Section 91

…from the "expenditure" referred to section 14A of the Act and that, therefore, section 14A is not applicable to the present case. The following case laws have been relied on : "i. "Hindustan Unilever Ltd.", 325 ITR 102 (Bom. HC) ii. "Galaxy Surfactants Ltd.", 343 ITR 108 (Bom. HC) iii. Assessee's Own case being "Yokogawa India Ltd. and other connected appeals", 341 ITR 385 (Kar. HC) iv) "Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd.", 348 ITR 72 (Bom.HC) v) "Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt. Ltd.", 2 ITR (T) 66 (Chennai Tribunal - SB). vi) "Navin Bharat Industries", 90 ITD 1 (Mumbai ITAT) vii) "Capgenimi India (P)…

M/S. KEI INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.3

ITA 528/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Satyan Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. D.R

…ITA.No.3564/D/2015 & ITA.No.528/D/2016 M/s. K.E.I. Industries Ltd., New Delhi. forward the loss of Chopanki unit. In allowing the appeal for assessment year 2008-09, the ITAT followed the decision of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 108. 21. Respectfully following the decision of ITAT in appellant’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09, the AO is directed to allow carry forward of loss of Rs.2,45,32,014/- of Chopanki unit as business loss. It is not a case, where losses of non eligible unit or units are being set off against the profit of eligible unit. The issue whether sec…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. K.E.I. INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.3

ITA 1433/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Satyan Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. D.R

…ITA.No.3564/D/2015 & ITA.No.528/D/2016 M/s. K.E.I. Industries Ltd., New Delhi. forward the loss of Chopanki unit. In allowing the appeal for assessment year 2008-09, the ITAT followed the decision of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 108. 21. Respectfully following the decision of ITAT in appellant’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09, the AO is directed to allow carry forward of loss of Rs.2,45,32,014/- of Chopanki unit as business loss. It is not a case, where losses of non eligible unit or units are being set off against the profit of eligible unit. The issue whether sec…

M/S KARLE INTERNATIOAL PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal

ITA/377/2012HC Karnataka07 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10BSection 10B(5)Section 234BSection 260Section 260ASection 70

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.377 OF 2012 BETWEEN: M/S. KARLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KARLE INTERNATIONAL) REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MAHENDRA KARLE No.203/73, TUMKUR ROAD NAGASANDRA VILLAGE BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560022. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,) AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-6(1), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD R.P. BHAVAN, OPP. RESERVE…

ACIT 15(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M MODEL GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4935/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 10ASection 1OSection 2(45)Section 70Section 80I

…the assessee by following the decision of the coordinate Bench rendered in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2007-08. So far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Mumbai vs. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd., 343 ITR 108 (Bom.), relied upon by the revenue is concerned, the Hon’ble High Court has held in the said case that loss of 100% Export Oriented Unit which is entitled to deduction under section 10B of the Act can be set off against profits of other units under the same head. Thus we see that the aforesaid case has been decided on different facts. Since, the…

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BEEYU OVERSEAS LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 629/KOL/2016[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 628/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2002-03 I.T.A. No. 629/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Jcit (Osd), Circle-4(1), Kolkata…………...................................................….…………..…......Appellant M/S. Beeyu Overseas Ltd....……………………………………....………………..……………………Respondent 64A, Ballygunge Circular Road Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Aabcb 3327 K] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 250Section 35DSection 72ASection 80H

…order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we dismiss this ground of the revenue. 13. Ground No. 5 is on the set off of loss of EoU. 14. This issue is now covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 108. As the order of the ld. CIT(A) is in line with the propositions laid down in the judgment by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the revenue. 15. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Kolkata, the 3rd day of April, 2019. [S.S. Godara] [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Judici…

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BEEYU OVERSEAS LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 628/KOL/2016[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2002-2003

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 628/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2002-03 I.T.A. No. 629/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Jcit (Osd), Circle-4(1), Kolkata…………...................................................….…………..…......Appellant M/S. Beeyu Overseas Ltd....……………………………………....………………..……………………Respondent 64A, Ballygunge Circular Road Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Aabcb 3327 K] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 250Section 35DSection 72ASection 80H

…order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we dismiss this ground of the revenue. 13. Ground No. 5 is on the set off of loss of EoU. 14. This issue is now covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 108. As the order of the ld. CIT(A) is in line with the propositions laid down in the judgment by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the revenue. 15. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Kolkata, the 3rd day of April, 2019. [S.S. Godara] [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Judici…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GLOSTER JUTE MILLS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.95/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sital Chandra Das, JCIT

…ision in the nature of 'exemption' but provides for 'deduction'. Hence the loss sustained by the said unit can be set off against the profit of the non eligible unit. Similar view has also been taken in the case of:- - CIT -vs.- Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 108 (Bom) - CIT vs Patni Computers Systems Ltd : ITA No. 2177 of 2010 (Bom) -M/s. Bharat Resins Ltd. -vs.- ACIT (2012) 50 SOT 298 (Ahm) -DCIT vs Brijlaxmi Infotech Limited: IT A No. 732/Ahd/2010 (Ahd) - Mindtree Consulting (P) Ltd. -vs.- DCIT (2006) 102 TTJ 691 (Bang.) - Mindteck (India) Ltd. vs ITO: 151 ITD 251 (Bang) - HoneyweIl International (Indi…

LAVINO KAPUR COTTONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3619/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Lavino Kapur Cottons Vs. Ito – 3(2)(1), Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., 121/122, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl0824C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 70Section 71

…of the appellant company and income of the appellant company from capital gains. b) That the CIT(A) has erred is not following the following decisions of the Bombay High Court in the following case brought to his notice:- (i) C.I.T v/s Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. 343 ITR 108. 2 M/s. Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd., (ii) Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v/s D.C.I.T 325 ITR 103. (iii) C.l.T v/s Shantivijay Jewels Ltd. 374 ITR 520. c) That the C.LT.(A) has erred in relying upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T v/s Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. 348 ITR 72 (Born) to deny the claim of the appellant compan…

RAYCHEM RPG P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4780/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Nabin Kumar Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Manish ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prakash R. Mane
Section 10BSection 145ASection 71

…unit under section 71 of the Act. In support of such contention, learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– 7 M/s. Raychem RPG Pvt. Ltd. i) Hindustan Uniliver Ltd. v/s DCIT, 325 ITR 102; and ii) CIT v/s Galaxy Surfactants Ltd., 343 ITR 108; 10. Learned Departmental Representative opposing the admission of additional ground submitted, as the assessee has not claimed the loss in the return of income or at the stage of assessment or even before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), it should not be permitted to raise a completely new issue at the second appellate stage. In this context…

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 4620/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

Section 10ASection 10BSection 70Section 80A(1)Section 80B(5)Section 80C

…o not form part of the total income and further the learned CIT(A) not following the direction contained in the order of CIT vs Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. 348 ITR 72 (Bom.), Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs DCIT 325 ITR 102 and CIT vs Galaxy Surfacatants Ltd. 343 ITR 108 and circular number 07/DV/2013 dated 16-07-2013 . 2. During hearing, the ld. DR, Shri Abhishek Sharma advanced identical arguments as contained in the grounds, raised by the Revenue. The crux of the argument is in support to denial of deduction and consequent stand taken in the assessment order. 2.1. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the a…

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6820/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jain & Sh. Rajendraassessment Year: 2005-06 Pan : Aaacr4849R M/S. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commr. Of Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building, Range 2(3), Nariman Point, Mumbai. Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By:Sh. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. Advocate Respondent By:Sh. N.K. Chand, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2015 Order Per A.D. Jain, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Chand, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 30Section 40Section 70Section 90Section 91

…ction 10A of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2000, are those of a deduction and they are not exemption provisions. Reliance has been placed on the following case laws: “i) “Hindustan Unilever Ltd.”, 325 ITR 102 (Bom. HC) ii) “Galaxy Surfactants Ltd.”, 343 ITR 108 (Bom. HC) iii) Assessee’s Own case being “Yokogawa India Ltd. and other connected appeals”, 341 ITR 385 (Kar. HC) iv) “Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd.”, 348 ITR 72 (Bom., HC) v) “Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt. Ltd.”, 2 ITR (T) 66 (Chennai Tribunal – SB) vi) “Sovika Infotech Limited v. ITO”, 23STO 271 (Mum. ITAT) vii) “Mindtree Con…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Sattenapalli

In the result, the order of the income tax appellate tribunal

ITTA/377/2012HC Telangana06 Nov 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 10BSection 10B(5)Section 234BSection 260Section 260ASection 70

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.377 OF 2012 BETWEEN: M/S. KARLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KARLE INTERNATIONAL) REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MAHENDRA KARLE No.203/73, TUMKUR ROAD NAGASANDRA VILLAGE BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560022. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,) AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-6(1), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD R.P. BHAVAN, OPP. RESERVE…

CIT v. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. (343 ITR 108) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax