What is CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation authority for?

Income earned during the project construction stage, which has a direct nexus or is inextricably linked to the project's setting up, constitutes a capital receipt not liable to tax and reduces the project cost.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation?

124 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation (247 ITR 268), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37(1), Section 40A(2)(b), Section 139(1), Section 143(3), Section 234A, Section 244A.

CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation (247 ITR 268)

ACIT, Circle-1, Noida vs. Jaiprakash Associates Limited, Noida

In the result, appeals of the Revenue

ITA 946/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar GargFor Respondent: Smt Abha Rani Singh

Section 143(3)

…elied upon the decisions in the case of Tulsi [SK] & Sons Vs. CIT 187 [supra], CIT Vs. Mazagaon Dock Ltd 191 ITR 460. [Mum] CIT Vs. Electro Metallurgical Works Pvt. 207 IT 494 [Mum] CIT. Vs. Ispat Ltd 210 ITR 1018 [Rajl and CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation 247 ITR 268 [SC] wherein same propositions have been laid down in order to determine whether the building structure or installation is a plant. It has been held that for determining the same the functional test is to be applied. If the structure or installation is merely a premises in which business is carried out it is not a plant. In case, however, the str…

ACIT, Circle-1, Noida vs. Jaiprakash Associates Limted, Noida

In the result, appeals of the Revenue

ITA 945/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar GargFor Respondent: Smt Abha Rani Singh

Section 143(3)

…elied upon the decisions in the case of Tulsi [SK] & Sons Vs. CIT 187 [supra], CIT Vs. Mazagaon Dock Ltd 191 ITR 460. [Mum] CIT Vs. Electro Metallurgical Works Pvt. 207 IT 494 [Mum] CIT. Vs. Ispat Ltd 210 ITR 1018 [Rajl and CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation 247 ITR 268 [SC] wherein same propositions have been laid down in order to determine whether the building structure or installation is a plant. It has been held that for determining the same the functional test is to be applied. If the structure or installation is merely a premises in which business is carried out it is not a plant. In case, however, the str…

Ujjawala Power Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 6564/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…(P) ltd. 92016) 388 ITR 169 (Raj.); decision of the Coordinate Bench rendered in the case of DCIT v. Anik Industries Ltd. [ ITA 9 993/Mum/2016 dated 27.06.2018] and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Karnataka Poner Corp. (2001) 247 ITR 268 (SC). The learned counsel contended that the authorities below grossly erred in disallowing the claim of he assessee. He contended that assessee has installed solar power generating system. He contended that the authorities below grossly erred in treating the structure as a building instead of plant and machinery. He contended that issue is squar…

Sp Jammu Udhampur Highway Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1507/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blesp Jammu-Udhampur Highway Pvt Ltd., V. Dcit- Circle-3(3)(2) 41/44, Shapoorji Pallonji Centre Aayakar Bhavan Minoo Desai Marg Mumbai - 400020 Colaba, Mumbai – 400005 Pan: Aaocs5512N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Chulawala Department By : Smiti Samant

For Appellant: Shri Manish ChulawalaFor Respondent: Smiti Samant

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)

…page 249, 315 ITR 255 (Delhi High Court), Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR pg. 315 (SC), The Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd. ITA. No. 628/JP/2014 Jaipur, Andhra Pradesh Expressway Ltd. ITA. No. 663/M/2015 & Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. 247 ITR 268. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the revenue has refuted the said contention. The factual situation is not in dispute to the fact that the assessee received the loan and credited in his account 22 SP Jammu-Udhampur Highway Pvt Ltd., lies with Bank of India who credited the interest in the account of the assessee. It is to b…

Ibrox Real Estate Development Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 57

…re appropriate decision in the factual situation in the present case is in CIT v Bokgr9 Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 3152 (SC). The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.” 18. In the case of CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation reported in (2001) 247 ITR 268, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, following its own decision in the case of Bokaro (Supra) held that, interest receipts Page 17 ITA Nos. 343 & 344/Bang/2022 and hire charges from contractors are capital receipts which would go to reduce capital cost. 19. In the case of CIT v. VGR Foundation reported in [2008] 292 ITR 132, Hon'ble Madras High Court rev…

Ibrox Real Estate Development Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 343/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 57

…re appropriate decision in the factual situation in the present case is in CIT v Bokgr9 Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 3152 (SC). The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.” 18. In the case of CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation reported in (2001) 247 ITR 268, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, following its own decision in the case of Bokaro (Supra) held that, interest receipts Page 17 ITA Nos. 343 & 344/Bang/2022 and hire charges from contractors are capital receipts which would go to reduce capital cost. 19. In the case of CIT v. VGR Foundation reported in [2008] 292 ITR 132, Hon'ble Madras High Court rev…

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

…‘Income from other sources’. Such interest, being, intrinsically connected 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…

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

…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. We have heard both the sides, perused the…

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

…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. We have heard both the sides, perused the…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rohtak Panipat Tollway Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1938/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R

Section 271Section 56

…o use for the purpose for which they were taken and if the receipt was inextricably linked to be setting up of a project, then it would be capital receipt not liable to tax but ultimately be used to reduce the cost of project: (i) Karnataka Power Corporation 247 ITR 268 (SC) (ii) Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 255 (Del.) I.T.A No. 1938/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 4 Dy. CIT vs. M/s. Rohtak Panipat Tollway Pvt. Ltd. (iii) NTPC Sail Power Company Pvt. Ltd. ITA 1238/2011 (Del. HC) (iv) Bokaro Steel Limited - 236 ITR 315 (SC) (v) Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemical Co. Ltd. 251 ITR 329…

M/S. Neel Metal Products Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3960/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Amarjit Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Neel Metal Products Vs. Addl. CIT, Ltd., Range-13, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN :AABCN6304Q (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Neel Metal Products Vs. ACIT, Ltd., Company Circle-13(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN :AABCN6304Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Adv. Respondent b…

M/S Neel Metal Products Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1368/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Amarjit Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Neel Metal Products Vs. Addl. CIT, Ltd., Range-13, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN :AABCN6304Q (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Neel Metal Products Vs. ACIT, Ltd., Company Circle-13(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN :AABCN6304Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Adv. Respondent b…

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

…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 (Delhi High Court);and (vii) PCIT vs Facor Power Ltd (2016)…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 882/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &

Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…the nature of plant and machinery eligible for investment allowance u/s 32A. The structures functionally are a necessary part of our mining process and activity. We also refer to the decision of Hon'b1e Supreme Court in (i) CIT vs Kamataka Power Corporation (247 ITR 268 (SC», where Hon'b1e Supreme Court held: "Power generating station building which is an integral part of assessee's generating system has to be treated as a plant, and investment allowance is allowable thereon. " The context in which your appellant refers to the decision jurisdictional High Court in their own case and the decision of Hon'ble Supre…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 880/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &

Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…the nature of plant and machinery eligible for investment allowance u/s 32A. The structures functionally are a necessary part of our mining process and activity. We also refer to the decision of Hon'b1e Supreme Court in (i) CIT vs Kamataka Power Corporation (247 ITR 268 (SC», where Hon'b1e Supreme Court held: "Power generating station building which is an integral part of assessee's generating system has to be treated as a plant, and investment allowance is allowable thereon. " The context in which your appellant refers to the decision jurisdictional High Court in their own case and the decision of Hon'ble Supre…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 879/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &

Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…the nature of plant and machinery eligible for investment allowance u/s 32A. The structures functionally are a necessary part of our mining process and activity. We also refer to the decision of Hon'b1e Supreme Court in (i) CIT vs Kamataka Power Corporation (247 ITR 268 (SC», where Hon'b1e Supreme Court held: "Power generating station building which is an integral part of assessee's generating system has to be treated as a plant, and investment allowance is allowable thereon. " The context in which your appellant refers to the decision jurisdictional High Court in their own case and the decision of Hon'ble Supre…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 803/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &

Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…the nature of plant and machinery eligible for investment allowance u/s 32A. The structures functionally are a necessary part of our mining process and activity. We also refer to the decision of Hon'b1e Supreme Court in (i) CIT vs Kamataka Power Corporation (247 ITR 268 (SC», where Hon'b1e Supreme Court held: "Power generating station building which is an integral part of assessee's generating system has to be treated as a plant, and investment allowance is allowable thereon. " The context in which your appellant refers to the decision jurisdictional High Court in their own case and the decision of Hon'ble Supre…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 802/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &

Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…the nature of plant and machinery eligible for investment allowance u/s 32A. The structures functionally are a necessary part of our mining process and activity. We also refer to the decision of Hon'b1e Supreme Court in (i) CIT vs Kamataka Power Corporation (247 ITR 268 (SC», where Hon'b1e Supreme Court held: "Power generating station building which is an integral part of assessee's generating system has to be treated as a plant, and investment allowance is allowable thereon. " The context in which your appellant refers to the decision jurisdictional High Court in their own case and the decision of Hon'ble Supre…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 801/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &

Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…the nature of plant and machinery eligible for investment allowance u/s 32A. The structures functionally are a necessary part of our mining process and activity. We also refer to the decision of Hon'b1e Supreme Court in (i) CIT vs Kamataka Power Corporation (247 ITR 268 (SC», where Hon'b1e Supreme Court held: "Power generating station building which is an integral part of assessee's generating system has to be treated as a plant, and investment allowance is allowable thereon. " The context in which your appellant refers to the decision jurisdictional High Court in their own case and the decision of Hon'ble Supre…

The Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Kothjagudem, Hyderabad vs. Addl.Citt, Khammam Range, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 561/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &

Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…the nature of plant and machinery eligible for investment allowance u/s 32A. The structures functionally are a necessary part of our mining process and activity. We also refer to the decision of Hon'b1e Supreme Court in (i) CIT vs Kamataka Power Corporation (247 ITR 268 (SC», where Hon'b1e Supreme Court held: "Power generating station building which is an integral part of assessee's generating system has to be treated as a plant, and investment allowance is allowable thereon. " The context in which your appellant refers to the decision jurisdictional High Court in their own case and the decision of Hon'ble Supre…

CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation

What is CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation

ACIT, Circle-1, Noida vs. Jaiprakash Associates Limited, Noida

ACIT, Circle-1, Noida vs. Jaiprakash Associates Limted, Noida

Ujjawala Power Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

Sp Jammu Udhampur Highway Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(2), Mumbai

Ibrox Real Estate Development Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

Ibrox Real Estate Development Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

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

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

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rohtak Panipat Tollway Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

M/S. Neel Metal Products Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

M/S Neel Metal Products Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

M/S. Ganpati Global Private Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward1(4), Jaipur

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

The Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Kothjagudem, Hyderabad vs. Addl.Citt, Khammam Range, Khammam