CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation

247 ITR 268Supreme Court of India2001#837 most cited

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.

124

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation · 247 ITR 268 · Supreme Court · income during construction · project cost reduction · capital receipt · not taxable · inextricably linked · capital work-in-progress · section 37(1) · section 32(1)(ii) · Bokaro Steel principle

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 37

Issues it is cited on

section 3asection 120(4)(b)section 4asection 36(1)(v)section 35esection 10(20)section 61section 46section 10(5)section 40a(7)section 92esection 92ba

Judgments citing CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation

Reju Daniel, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(5), New Delhi

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 601/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.601 to 602/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Reju Daniel Income Tax Officer D-15/188-189, Sector-3, Vs Ward – 39 (5) Rohini, New Delhi -110085 New Delhi PAN No.AAHPD3535E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri V. P. Bansal, CA Respondent by Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 03/07/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 26/07/2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 27.12.2018 of the CIT(A)-13, New Delh…

Hll Biotech Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, WD-1(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Stay Petitions filed

ITA 578/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…s. 576 to 578/Coch/2018 & S.P. Nos. 47-49/Coch/2018 connected with the construction activities, were held to be not taxable, rather than they were held to be reduced from the total capital expenditure. 7.4 In the case of CIT vs. Karnataka Power Corporation (243 ITR 268), the first question referred before the Court was as under:- "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) who deleted the addition of Rs. 1,30,44,518 being interest receipts and hire charges from contractors by holding that the same are in the nature of capita…

Hll Biotech Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, WD-1(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Stay Petitions filed

ITA 577/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…s. 576 to 578/Coch/2018 & S.P. Nos. 47-49/Coch/2018 connected with the construction activities, were held to be not taxable, rather than they were held to be reduced from the total capital expenditure. 7.4 In the case of CIT vs. Karnataka Power Corporation (243 ITR 268), the first question referred before the Court was as under:- "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) who deleted the addition of Rs. 1,30,44,518 being interest receipts and hire charges from contractors by holding that the same are in the nature of capita…

Hll Biotech Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, WD-1(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Stay Petitions filed

ITA 576/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…s. 576 to 578/Coch/2018 & S.P. Nos. 47-49/Coch/2018 connected with the construction activities, were held to be not taxable, rather than they were held to be reduced from the total capital expenditure. 7.4 In the case of CIT vs. Karnataka Power Corporation (243 ITR 268), the first question referred before the Court was as under:- "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) who deleted the addition of Rs. 1,30,44,518 being interest receipts and hire charges from contractors by holding that the same are in the nature of capita…

Ongc Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is allowed

ITA 1522/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Ongc Mangalore Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Petrochemicals Ltd., Income-Tax, Mangalore Special Economic Circle-1(1), Zone, Mangalore. Permude Village, Mangalore – 574 509. Pan : Aafcm 0322 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. R. Kamath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Kamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

…in the decision in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Page 13 of 14 Consortium Ltd., Vs. ITO (supra), is in line with Bokaro Steel Ltd., (226 ITR 315) of the Hon’ble Apex Court and that the Hon’ble Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation (247 ITR 268) (SC), and Bongaigon Refinery and Petrochemical Co. Ltd., (251 ITR 329) (SC) held that such receipts are not income. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd., Vs. ITO (supra) and the other decisions referred to by u…

The ITO, Ward-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, cross objection of the assessee on this score stands allowed

ITA 1430/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1430/Ahd/2015 With Cross Objection No. 114/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 56

…unsel for the assessee, on the other hand, professed that the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC) and Karnataka Power Corporation 247 ITR 268 (SC). To buttress its claim on merits that accrued interest on earmarked funds would go to reduce the cost of the project and does not represent revenue nature and chargeable nature, the learned AR submitted that on the similar analogy, assessee has simultaneously capitalised interest and finance costs of Rs.136.80 Crores and added the same to th…

M/S. Jaipur Tax Weaving Park Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Her.”

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…nd rent of machinery let to the contractors for construction of building were capital receipt and would go to reduce the cost of construction. 11 M/s Jaipur Texweaving Park Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur 15. In the case of CIT v/s Karnataka Power Corporation (247 ITR 268) (SC) the issue was with reference to treatment of interest receipts and hire charges from contractors as to whether such receipts are revenue in nature or capital so as to reduce its capital cost. The Hon'ble Court by following the theory enunciated in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd. held in favour of the assessee. 16. In the case of Bongaigaon R…

Jorabat Shillong Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3667/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3667/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ Jorabat Shillong Expressway Ito 14(2)(1) Ltd. (Erstwhile Income Tax Vs. The Il&Fs Financial Center, Officer-10(1)(4) Mumbai Room No. 457, 4Th Floor, Plot No. C-22, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Bandra(E), Mumbai-400051. Karve Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccj3827H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dilip V. Lakhani (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.02.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming That The Interest Income Of Rs.31,13,010/- The Appellant Prays That The Interest Income Earned By The Appellant Amounting To

For Appellant: Shri Dilip V. Lakhani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 234B

…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 lies with Bank of India who credited the interest in the account of the assessee. It is to be seen whether the said interest income…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bank Note Paper Mill India Pvt Ltd

ITA/690/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…earned prior to commencement of operations of the company during the construction period. 3. The learned Tribunal also referred and relied upon the Judgments of this Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Karnataka Power Corporation’ [247 ITR 268] and ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure and Development and Finance Corporation [284 ITR 582] and held that such interest income would go to reduce the capital cost of the project and is on the capital Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.690/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & another Vs. M/s Bank…

Asst CIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Essar Power Gujarat Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4020/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./4020/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./4019/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 वष" Acit-6(2)(2) M/S. Essar Power Gujarat Ltd. Room No.563, Aayakar Bhavan, Essar House, 11 Kk Marg, Mahalaxmi Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 034. Pan:Aabce 7510 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Virendra Singh अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kishnadwala सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/06/2018 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश धारा के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य ,राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार - Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 23/03/2016 Of The Cit(A)-12,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao)Has Filed Above Appeals.Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Setting Up Of Coal Based Power Plant.As The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar,So,We Are Adjudicating Them Together.Details Of Filings Of Returns,Retunred Incomes,Assessed Incomes Can Be Summar -Ised As Under: Ay. Roi Filed On Returned Income Asst.Date Assessed Income 2011-12 05/09/2011 Rs.3.65 Crores 18/03/2014 Rs.6.99 Crores 2012-13 27/09/2012 Rs.5.44 Crores 29/12/2014 Rs.11.14 Crores

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KishnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Singh
Section 254(1)

…be treated as 'Income from Other Sources' chargeable u/s 56 of the Act. She relied upon the cases of Bokaro Steel Ltd.(236 ITR 315),Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (141ITR134),Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd (243ITR2)and Karnataka Power Corpora- tion(247 ITR 268). 4019/M/16 & 4020/M/16(12-13)&(11-12) 4.Before us,the Departmental.Represnetative(DR) supported the order of the AO and stated that he had rightly taxed the interest income under the head income from other sources. The Authorised Representative(AR)stated that the assessee was required to make deposit with the banks for the purpose of opening…

M/S Bank Note Paper Mill India Private Limited, Mysore vs. The Income Tax Officer Circle-1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 165/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Guruswamy, CIT (D.R)

…on’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinary Petrochemicals Ltd. v. CIT (251 ITR 329)(SC), Bokara Steel Ltd. (supra), and Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) and its own decision in the case of CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation, (247 ITR 268) and CIT vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure and Development and Finance Corporation (284 ITR 582) held that such interest income would go to reduce the capital cost of the project, is on the capital account and should not be brought to tax. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: “9. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the…

M/S Sirmour Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Sirmour vs. ITO, Nahan

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 80I

…ing and furniture, fittings and fixtures therein in case of hotel wherein otherwise no plant and machinery is required. We find support, in our view, from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation’ (2001) 247 ITR 268 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the question whether a building can be treated as plant, basically, is a question of fact and where it is found as a fact that a building has been so planned and constructed as to serve as assessee’s special technical requirements, it will qualify to be treated as a plant for the purpose of…

M/S Sirmour Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Sirmour vs. DCIT, Parwanoo

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 375/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 80I

…ing and furniture, fittings and fixtures therein in case of hotel wherein otherwise no plant and machinery is required. We find support, in our view, from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation’ (2001) 247 ITR 268 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the question whether a building can be treated as plant, basically, is a question of fact and where it is found as a fact that a building has been so planned and constructed as to serve as assessee’s special technical requirements, it will qualify to be treated as a plant for the purpose of…

M/S Sirmour Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Sirmour vs. DCIT, Parwanoo

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 374/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 80I

…ing and furniture, fittings and fixtures therein in case of hotel wherein otherwise no plant and machinery is required. We find support, in our view, from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation’ (2001) 247 ITR 268 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the question whether a building can be treated as plant, basically, is a question of fact and where it is found as a fact that a building has been so planned and constructed as to serve as assessee’s special technical requirements, it will qualify to be treated as a plant for the purpose of…

Diwakar Solar Projects Ltd., (Formerly Known As M/S. Diwakar Solar Projects Pvt.Ltd.), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1219/HYD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 4

…onnected to the setting up of the plant and are capital in nature and therefore not taxable as held by the Hon. Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd (1999) 236 ITR 315(SC) and in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation (2001) 247 ITR 268 (SC) and also by number of courts and Tribunals. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that capital receipt are not taxable as per the provision of Section 4 of Income Tax act,1961. 9. The appellant may add, alter, or modify or substitute any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the…

Diwakar Solar Projects Ltd., (Formerly Known As M/S. Diwakar Solar Projects Pvt.Ltd.), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1218/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 4

…onnected to the setting up of the plant and are capital in nature and therefore not taxable as held by the Hon. Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd (1999) 236 ITR 315(SC) and in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation (2001) 247 ITR 268 (SC) and also by number of courts and Tribunals. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that capital receipt are not taxable as per the provision of Section 4 of Income Tax act,1961. 9. The appellant may add, alter, or modify or substitute any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 5655/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…ase of an operation theatre in the hospital, it has been held to be a part of plant and not a part 18 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. of building. Ld. AR referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Karnataka Power Corpn. (2000) 247 ITR 268 (SC) and submitted that the power generating station building is held to be a plant. He submitted that such structures are specific for the purpose of business of the assessee and the assessee is entitled for depreciation at rate as applicable to plant and machinery. 34. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below. He subm…

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4784/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…ase of an operation theatre in the hospital, it has been held to be a part of plant and not a part 18 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. of building. Ld. AR referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Karnataka Power Corpn. (2000) 247 ITR 268 (SC) and submitted that the power generating station building is held to be a plant. He submitted that such structures are specific for the purpose of business of the assessee and the assessee is entitled for depreciation at rate as applicable to plant and machinery. 34. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below. He subm…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 5592/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…ase of an operation theatre in the hospital, it has been held to be a part of plant and not a part 18 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. of building. Ld. AR referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Karnataka Power Corpn. (2000) 247 ITR 268 (SC) and submitted that the power generating station building is held to be a plant. He submitted that such structures are specific for the purpose of business of the assessee and the assessee is entitled for depreciation at rate as applicable to plant and machinery. 34. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below. He subm…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4911/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…ase of an operation theatre in the hospital, it has been held to be a part of plant and not a part 18 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. of building. Ld. AR referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Karnataka Power Corpn. (2000) 247 ITR 268 (SC) and submitted that the power generating station building is held to be a plant. He submitted that such structures are specific for the purpose of business of the assessee and the assessee is entitled for depreciation at rate as applicable to plant and machinery. 34. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below. He subm…