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 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 234A Section 244A Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, cross objections of the

ITA 4847/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Delhi] to establish that golf course is not a plant and machinery and it is to be categorised as a building and on the other hand, the ld. AR has placed reliance on the case of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corpn. 247 ITR 268 [SC], Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd Vs. CIT 157 ITR 86 [SC] and decision in the case of Victory 45 CO No. 328/Del/2009 & 111/2010 Aqua Farm Ltd 61 Taxmann.com 166 [SC] and plethora of decision to support the case of the assessee that golf course is a plant and machinery and it is not a building. Interestingly, no cited decision relied b…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, cross objections of the

ITA 3549/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

CIT vs. Maithon Power Ltd

The appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs

ITA/5/2015HC Delhi21 Jul 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260ASection 28Section 5

…and the production had not yet commenced were held to be “directly related to the capital structure of the business” and therefore of “capital nature”. 12. The above legal position has been further reiterated in CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation [2001] 247 ITR 268 (SC), and CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392 (SC). In Ponni Sugars (supra), the Court was considering the nature of the subsidy received by a cooperative society from the Government for the running of a sugar mill. The Court applied the „purpose test‟. It held that the character of the receipt of subsidy in the hands of…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jaypee Dsc Ventures Ltd

Accordingly, the same stands dismissed

ITA/357/2010HC Delhi11 Mar 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…. The decision in CIT v. BoKaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315(SC) has been followed by a two-judge Bench of this court in CIT v. Karnal Co- operative Sugar Mills Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 2 and by a three-judge Bench in CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation [2001] 247 ITR 268. In fact, in the latter case, it was not disputed by the Revenue that the question that related to hire charges paid by contractors had to be answered in the light of the judgment in Bokaro Steel Ltd.'s case [1999] 236ITR 315(SC). It is, therefore, not possible now to take any view different from that taken in Bokaro Steel Ltd.'s case [1999…