CIT v. Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. (336 ITR 479)

HARSHAD HIMMATLAL RUPANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), PUNE

In the result the ground number 3 is allowed for Statistical

ITA 920/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.920/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Harshad Himmatlal Rupani, V The Income Tax Officer, 101/102, Ashoka Building, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Green Valley Housing Society, Wanwadi, Pune – 411040. Pan: Adopr6163Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Jain Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur – (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15 Dated 26.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 22.11.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”ए” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.920/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Harshad Himmatlal Rupani, V The Income Tax Officer, 101/102, Ashoka Building, s Ward-5(1), Pune. Green Valley Housing Society, Wanwadi, Pune – 411040. PAN: ADOPR6163Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Mahavir Jain Revenue by Smt Neha Thakur – (Virtual) Date of hearing 21/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR…

ECOKRIN HYGIENE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1) , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3006/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya a/w Ms. RashmiFor Respondent: 11.01.2024

Section 14ASection 41(1)

…578. The Delhi High Court, after following these decisions concluded that merely because the liability is barred by limitation, it does not cease to be a debt. This view is also taken by this Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 479. Therefore, the submission made by the Appellant that because the liability is barred by the period of limitation the same would be treated as income and added under section 41(1) of the Act cannot be accepted as no other decision contrary to the above is shown to us. Thus, the second question of law does not survive for consideration.” 14. We n…

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…smooth functioning. This gesture of supporting the schools and hospitals therefore is for the purposes of its business. In this regard reliance is further placed on judgment of the Hon' ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. 336 ITR 479 and PCIT v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. being Order dated 11.02.2019 in Income Tax Appeal No. 1765 of 2016 and the Madras High Court in CIT v. Madras Refineries Ltd.266 ITR 170. Based thereon, it is urged that the capital assets used to support the schools and the hospitals in the facts of the present case has been used for the purposes of its bu…

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…smooth functioning. This gesture of supporting the schools and hospitals therefore is for the purposes of its business. In this regard reliance is further placed on judgment of the Hon' ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. 336 ITR 479 and PCIT v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. being Order dated 11.02.2019 in Income Tax Appeal No. 1765 of 2016 and the Madras High Court in CIT v. Madras Refineries Ltd.266 ITR 170. Based thereon, it is urged that the capital assets used to support the schools and the hospitals in the facts of the present case has been used for the purposes of its bu…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. F A INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the order of the learned CIT (A) is confirmed

ITA 2739/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Income Tax Officer Fa Infraprojects Limited Ward 12(2)(1) Plot No.112, Room No.147B, 1St Floor, Tps Iii, 1St Floor, Vs. 6Th Road, Khar (West) Aaykar Bhavan , Mumbai-400 052 Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcf3996Q Assessee By : Ramesh B Joshi, Ar Revenue By : Vranda U Matkarni, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2023

For Appellant: Ramesh B Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni, DR

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…578. The Delhi High Court, after following these decisions concluded that merely because the liability is barred by limitation, it does not cease to be a debt. This view is also taken by this Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 479. Therefore, the submission made by the Appellant that because the liability is barred by the period of limitation the same would be treated as income and added under section 41(1) of the Act cannot be F.A. Infraprojects Limited; A.Y.12-13 accepted as no other decision contrary to the above is shown to us. Thus, the second question of law does not…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12,KOLKATA vs. M/S.SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of

ITAT/46/2020HC Calcutta23 Nov 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 148Section 260ASection 41Section 41(1)

…the debt-the debtor making payment thereof to his creditor. Transfer of an entry is neither an agreement between the parties nor payment of the liability……” 11 (2009) 311 ITR 299 (del) 12 (2011) 336 ITR 479 (Bom) ITAT NO. 46 OF 2020 REPORTABLE Page 14 of 22  The Supreme Court held that the principle that the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act would not ex…

PENINSULA PROPERTIES ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 735/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dcit Central Circle–5(2) Peninsula Properties 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vakil Industrial Estate, Valbahat Nariman Point, Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Churchgate Mumbai-400 063 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaifp 7134 L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Praveen Shekhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Praveen Shekhar, DR

Section 143Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)

…578. The Delhi High Court, after following these decisions concluded that merely because the liability is barred by limitation, it does not cease to be a debt. This view is also taken by this Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 479. Therefore, the submission made by the Appellant that because the liability is barred by the period of limitation the same would be treated as income and added under section 41(1) of the Act cannot be accepted as no other decision contrary to the above is shown to us. Thus, the second question of law does not survive for consideration.” Peninsula…

FRANCOIS COMPRESSOR INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2504/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2504/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 ………. अपीलाथ" / Francois Compressor India Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.147/1(New), Lavale Road, Appellant Pirangut, Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune – 412115. Pan : Aabcf0496K. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 (2), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah. Revenue By : Shri Amol Kamat. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dt.31.08.2017 Passed Under Sec.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under : The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Sale

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41(1)Section 92C

…of ACIT vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., 322 ITR 20 (SC). The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. (supra) was followed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd., 336 ITR 479 (Bom.). To the similar effect the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tube Investments of India Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT, 223 Taxman 172 (Mad.). Admittedly, in the present case, the ECB loan was obtained only for the purpose of acquisition of asset in India and, therefore, we do not find any illegality in the findings of the Hon’ble…

CIT v. Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd.

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd.