CIT v. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.

243 ITR 2Supreme Court of India2000#822 most cited

What is CIT v. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. authority for?

Income earned from deposits or investments directly and inextricably linked to the acquisition of assets or the setting up of a business project during its construction period is incidental to the asset acquisition, reducing the project cost, or constitutes business receipts eligible for relevant deductions, rather than 'income from other sources'.

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills · 243 ITR 2 · income during construction · project cost reduction · funds linked to asset acquisition · business income · section 28(1) · section 80IA · section 80IAB · Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals distinguished

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 28(1)Section 80-IABSection 80IA(4)(iii)

Issues it is cited on

section 112section 111section 114section 57(iii)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularssection 57section 22section 56income from other sourcessection 271(1)section 37(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.

Sai Siddhant Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2193/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…ated as recovery of part of the project cost and cannot be treated as income from other sources. We find that the ld. AR had rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd reported in 243 ITR 2 (SC) . The relevant operative portion of the judgement is reproduced hereunder:- "2. In the present case, the assessee had deposited money to open a letter of credit for the purchase of the machinery required for setting up its plant in terms of the assessee's agreement with the supplier. It was on the money so deposited that some interest has bee…

Sai Siddhant Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2192/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

…ated as recovery of part of the project cost and cannot be treated as income from other sources. We find that the ld. AR had rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd reported in 243 ITR 2 (SC) . The relevant operative portion of the judgement is reproduced hereunder:- "2. In the present case, the assessee had deposited money to open a letter of credit for the purchase of the machinery required for setting up its plant in terms of the assessee's agreement with the supplier. It was on the money so deposited that some interest has bee…

M/S. Sai Siddhi Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC-5(40, Mumbai

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2190/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

…ated as recovery of part of the project cost and cannot be treated as income from other sources. We find that the ld. AR had rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd reported in 243 ITR 2 (SC) . The relevant operative portion of the judgement is reproduced hereunder:- "2. In the present case, the assessee had deposited money to open a letter of credit for the purchase of the machinery required for setting up its plant in terms of the assessee's agreement with the supplier. It was on the money so deposited that some interest has bee…

Shree Sai Consultants, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2188/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)

…ated as recovery of part of the project cost and cannot be treated as income from other sources. We find that the ld. AR had rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd reported in 243 ITR 2 (SC) . The relevant operative portion of the judgement is reproduced hereunder:- "2. In the present case, the assessee had deposited money to open a letter of credit for the purchase of the machinery required for setting up its plant in terms of the assessee's agreement with the supplier. It was on the money so deposited that some interest has bee…

Dana India Technical Centre Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1 (2), Pune

ITA 437/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.437/Pun/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

…ted with construction activity would go to reduce the cost of construction. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation (2001) 247 ITR 268 (SC). In CIT Vs. Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 2 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically considered the amount of interest earned during construction period on the amount of fixed deposits for opening letter of credit. The same was held to be not chargeable to tax as ‘Income from other sources’. We find that the facts and circumstances of the extant issue are squarely covered by the above…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2181/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2180 & 2181/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Income Tax, Administrative Building, Chennai Metro Corporate Circle 1(2), Rail Depot, P.H. Road, Opp. To Daniel Chennai 600 034. Thomas School, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107. [Pan: Aadcc2233K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 14.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since Common Ground Involved, Both The Appeals Were Heard & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. The Only Common Ground Raised In Both The Appeals Relates To Deletion Of Addition Made Towards Interest Income.

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 14Section 4

…the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. 227 ITR 172 and by relying upon the subsequent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315, Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. 243 ITR 2 and Karnataka Power Corporation 247 ITR 268, the ld. 6 I.T.A. Nos.2180 & 2181/Chny/18 CIT(A) has observed that the claim of the assessee is reasonable and deserves to be accepted and accordingly held that the interest income is not taxable. 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the assessment years under appeal. 5.…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2180/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2180 & 2181/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Income Tax, Administrative Building, Chennai Metro Corporate Circle 1(2), Rail Depot, P.H. Road, Opp. To Daniel Chennai 600 034. Thomas School, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107. [Pan: Aadcc2233K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 14.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since Common Ground Involved, Both The Appeals Were Heard & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. The Only Common Ground Raised In Both The Appeals Relates To Deletion Of Addition Made Towards Interest Income.

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 14Section 4

…the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. 227 ITR 172 and by relying upon the subsequent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315, Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. 243 ITR 2 and Karnataka Power Corporation 247 ITR 268, the ld. 6 I.T.A. Nos.2180 & 2181/Chny/18 CIT(A) has observed that the claim of the assessee is reasonable and deserves to be accepted and accordingly held that the interest income is not taxable. 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the assessment years under appeal. 5.…

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

…ts 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 result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 24th January, 2022 at…

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Lalitpur Power Generation Company, Mumbai

ITA 3566/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 57Section 94A

…. Bajaj Energy Ltd. in ITA No.983/M/2015 order dated 11.10.2017 in A.Y. 2011-12 which was remitted back to the AO to decide afresh in the light of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 2 (SC). 8. Both the Ld. A.R and D.R have made a request that in order to substantiate the cause of justice, issues cropped up in the present appeal be also remitted to AO to decide afresh in the light of the directions issued by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in order dated 11.10.2017 (supra) passed for A.Y. 2011-12.…

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

…to be treated as “Income from other sources”. However, in numerous subsequent judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Courts, in the cases of : (i) Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC); (ii) CIT vs Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd 243 ITR 2 (SC); (iii) CIT vs Karnataka Power Corporation 247 ITR 268 (SC); (iv) BongaigaonRefinary And Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2001] 251 ITR 329 (SC); 6 M/s Ganpati Global (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (v) Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd vs. ITO 315 ITR 255 (Delhi High Court); (vi) CIT vs Jaypee Dsc Ventures Ltd in ITA No. 357/2010 (D…

Gail (India) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-12

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 859/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…for the assessee stated that netting off of revenue and the expenditure were transferred to Capital Work In Progress which is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bokaro Steel 236 ITR 315 and Karnal Cooperative Sugar 243 ITR 2. 4.2 Per contra, Ld. DR supported the findings of the AO. 4.3 We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. In our considered opinion, the assessee has rightly netted off the expenditure during trial run with the income of trial run and the balance has been rightly transferred to capital work in progress. We accordingly, direct…

Gail (India) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-12

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 858/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…for the assessee stated that netting off of revenue and the expenditure were transferred to Capital Work In Progress which is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bokaro Steel 236 ITR 315 and Karnal Cooperative Sugar 243 ITR 2. 4.2 Per contra, Ld. DR supported the findings of the AO. 4.3 We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. In our considered opinion, the assessee has rightly netted off the expenditure during trial run with the income of trial run and the balance has been rightly transferred to capital work in progress. We accordingly, direct…

Mr. Rajan Mahajan Dgm (F&A) vs. Addl. CIT, Range-12

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 301/DEL/2006[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…for the assessee stated that netting off of revenue and the expenditure were transferred to Capital Work In Progress which is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bokaro Steel 236 ITR 315 and Karnal Cooperative Sugar 243 ITR 2. 4.2 Per contra, Ld. DR supported the findings of the AO. 4.3 We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. In our considered opinion, the assessee has rightly netted off the expenditure during trial run with the income of trial run and the balance has been rightly transferred to capital work in progress. We accordingly, direct…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4642/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…d in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case vide order dated 22.01.2010 for the A.Y. 1997-98. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Bokaro Steel 236 ITR 315 and Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills 243 ITR 2. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) should have directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the aforesaid interest and miscellaneous income capitalized while excluding the same from the eligible profits. 19. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 20. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relev…

Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT-Ltu Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4454/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…d in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case vide order dated 22.01.2010 for the A.Y. 1997-98. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Bokaro Steel 236 ITR 315 and Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills 243 ITR 2. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) should have directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the aforesaid interest and miscellaneous income capitalized while excluding the same from the eligible profits. 19. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 20. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relev…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kota vs. M/S Career Point Infra Ltd., Kota

ITA 720/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Aug 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, DCIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…that interest received, rent received, hire charges and royalty, etc., would be reduced from the cost of the assets and it would not be treated as income. Similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in the case Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. 12000] 243 ITR 2. Identical view was also taken by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bongaigaon Refinary and Petrochemicals Ltd. 12001] 251 ITR 329 and Karnataka Power Corporation 120011247 1TR 268. HIGH COURT OF DELHI in Vodafone South Ltd v. Commissioner of Income-tax 61 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi) held- Where assessee having availed of loan from HSBC, advanced said…

Raykal Aluminium Company Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 488/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

…at it is crystal clear that capital receipt and capital expenses are not P a g e 6 | 13 ITA No. 4 88/CTK/201 7 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 13- 14 chargeable to tax. In this connection, the Supreme Court in the case of OT vrs. Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. [243 ITR 2], CIT vrs. M/s. Pormi Sugars and Chemicals Ltd (306 ITR 392) and CIT vs Maheswari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. (57 ITR 36) has held that capital receipts are not liable to tax under the Income tax Act, 1961.” 10. The Assessing Officer dismissed the contention of the assessee by observing as under: “ 5.2 From the above stated facts, it is clear that the a…

Rak Construction Project Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7584/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.7584/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Rak Construction Project Co. Pvt. Ltd. 113–A, Mittal Tower, Nariman Point ……………. Appellant Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AACCK8147P v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(3)(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue by : Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak Date of Hearing – 26.02.2020 Date of Order – 13.07.2020 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order…

Loop Telecom Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3188/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh Raj Gopalan- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Michel Jerald- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 35ASection 36

…educe the project costs. Such receipts would, thus be capital in nature. Reliance was placed, inter- alia, on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999 236 ITR 315) & CIT V/s Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited (243 ITR 2) and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT v. Maharashtra Electrosmelt Limited (214 ITR 489). 5.2 However, not convinced, Ld. AO opined that business activities were started during the year and substantial opening working-in-progress (WIP) M/s. Loop Telecom Ltd. A.Y: 2011-12 was put to use during the year. Therefore, the said in…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2018/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…relevant observations of the Supreme Court are extracted below for the sake of ready reference; "11. Further, the rationale of judgment of Bokaro Steel Ltd. (supra) was followed in CIT vs. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Lid. (2000) 161 CTR (SC) 241 : (2000) 243 ITR 2 (SC) . In this case,- the company had deposited certain amount with the bank to open letter of credit for purchase of machinery for setting up plant. On the money so deposited, it earned interest. In that background, this Court observed that this is not a case where any surplus shares capital money which was lying idle had been deposited in the ban…