CIT v. Koshika Telecom Ltd.

287 ITR 479High Court2006#3740 most cited

What is CIT v. Koshika Telecom Ltd. authority for?

Ad hoc disallowances cannot be made without basis, and the assessee's claim must be accepted if books of account are not rejected. Income from FDRs is considered business income if inextricably linked to business activities, such as providing security for a letter of credit.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Koshika Telecom Ltd. · ad hoc disallowance · rejection of books of account · income from FDRs · business income · section 145 · section 143(3) · interest income · letter of credit · Allied Construction

Also reported as

106 TTJ 616

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 194JSection 250Section 269TSection 271D

Issues it is cited on

rejection of books of accountadmission of additional evidencesection 145(3)complete scrutinysection 145section 28income from other sourcestransfersection 14indiasection 143company

Judgments citing CIT v. Koshika Telecom Ltd.

DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. Ossian Exports, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2024/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Ossian Exports Income Tax Officer-14(2)(4) 902, Jewel World Earnest House Vs. Kalbadevi Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400002 Mumbai Pan – Aaacfo0992K Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle-8(3) M/S. Ossian Exports (Erstwhile Dcit, Cc-46) 902, Jewel World Room No. 659, 6Th Floor Vs. Kalbadevi Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacfo0992K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Ms. Anju Garodia
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 51(1)

…nds should be assessed as ‘business income’ and not as ‘income from other sources’ as treated by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, Ld Counsel relied on the following decisions. i) CIT vs. Vidyut Steel Ltd. 219 ITR 30 (AP) ii) CIT vs. Koshika Telecom Ltd 287 ITR 479 (Del) iii) CIT vs. Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd 243 ITR 2 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Indo Swiss Jewells Ltd 284 ITR 389 (Bom) 15. On the other hand, Ld DR dutifully relied on the order of the AO. 16. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as citations quoted by the Ld Counsel along with the relevant m…

Ossian Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1650/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Ossian Exports Income Tax Officer-14(2)(4) 902, Jewel World Earnest House Vs. Kalbadevi Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400002 Mumbai Pan – Aaacfo0992K Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle-8(3) M/S. Ossian Exports (Erstwhile Dcit, Cc-46) 902, Jewel World Room No. 659, 6Th Floor Vs. Kalbadevi Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacfo0992K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Ms. Anju Garodia
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 51(1)

…nds should be assessed as ‘business income’ and not as ‘income from other sources’ as treated by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, Ld Counsel relied on the following decisions. i) CIT vs. Vidyut Steel Ltd. 219 ITR 30 (AP) ii) CIT vs. Koshika Telecom Ltd 287 ITR 479 (Del) iii) CIT vs. Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd 243 ITR 2 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Indo Swiss Jewells Ltd 284 ITR 389 (Bom) 15. On the other hand, Ld DR dutifully relied on the order of the AO. 16. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as citations quoted by the Ld Counsel along with the relevant m…

Jewel Art, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4908/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Jewel Art Dcit, Cc-13, Gala No. 19/22, Gem & Jewellery [Now Dcit, Cc-2(3)], Mumbai. Complex No. Ii, Seepz, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400096. Pan: Aacfj2646R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rishabh Shah (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2016 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm: 1. This Appeal U/S 253 Of The Income-Tax Act Is Directed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Dated 05.08.2015 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search & Seizure Action U/S 132 & Survey U/S 133A Of The Income-Tax Act Was Carried Out In Case Of Asian Star Group On 29.10.2010. Consequent Upon Search, The Notice U/S 153 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. In Response To The Notice, Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 27.09.2011. While Framing The Assessment U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Besides The Other Addition Made The Addition Of Rs. 44,59,441/- Holding That The Income From Other Sources Which Was Earned As Interest On Fd’S Is Not Eligible For Exemption U/S 10A. Aggrieved By The Order Of Ao, Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia (DR)
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 253Section 80I

…unds should be assessed as 'business income' and not as 'income from other sources' as treated by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, Ld Counsel relied on the following decisions. i) CIT vs. Vidyut Steel Ltd. 219 ITR 30 (AP) ii) CIT vs. Koshika Telecom Ltd 287 ITR 479 (Del) iii) CIT vs. Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd 243 ITR 2 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Indo Swiss Jewells Ltd 284 ITR 389 (8om) 15. On the other hand, Ld OR dutifully relied on the order of the AO. 16. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as citations quoted by the Ld Counsel along with the relevant m…

Prestress Wire Industries, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 12(1), Mumbai

ITA 6467/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh Joshi, D.S. Kabra-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang-DR
Section 143Section 254(1)

…nds should be assessed as „business income‟ and not as „income from other sources‟ as treated by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, Ld Counsel relied on the following decisions. i) CIT vs. Vidyut Steel Ltd. 219 ITR 30 (AP) ii) CIT vs. Koshika Telecom Ltd 287 ITR 479 (Del) iii) CIT vs. Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd 243 ITR 2 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Indo Swiss Jewells Ltd 284 ITR 389 (Bom) 15. On the other hand, Ld DR dutifully relied on the order of the AO. 16. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as citations quoted by the Ld Counsel along with the relevant m…

Msx Mall Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 998/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 251

…ns of the business of the assessee and was hence taxable under the head ‘business’. To support this contention, the ld. AR placed his reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Koshika Telecom reported at 287 ITR 479 [Del] and CIT Vs. JPDSC Ventures Ltd 335 ITR 132 [Del]. The d. Counsel drew our attention towards submissions of the assessee recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in para 11.2 of the impugned order and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) chose to utilise its FDs towards its obligations of keeping margin money for bank guarantee and instead of providing some othe…

Msx Mall Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 997/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 251

…ns of the business of the assessee and was hence taxable under the head ‘business’. To support this contention, the ld. AR placed his reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Koshika Telecom reported at 287 ITR 479 [Del] and CIT Vs. JPDSC Ventures Ltd 335 ITR 132 [Del]. The d. Counsel drew our attention towards submissions of the assessee recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in para 11.2 of the impugned order and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) chose to utilise its FDs towards its obligations of keeping margin money for bank guarantee and instead of providing some othe…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S International Stones India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 608/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…2010-11 and not to be treated as income from other sources. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- a) CIT v. Chinna Constructions (2006) 297 ITR 70 (Kar) b) CIT v. Koshika Telecom Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 479 (Del) c) ACIT v. Allied Construction (2007) 106 TTJ 616 (Del Trib.) 42. The CIT(Appeals) was of the view that interest received from bank was not connected with the business of the undertaking of the assessee. Relying on the decisions of K. Ravindramatham Nair v. Dy. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 669 (Ker) and MKR Frozen Food Expert v. ITO (2010) 126 ITD 1 (Del), the CIT(A) held that there was no linkage betwee…

M/S International Stone India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 539/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…2010-11 and not to be treated as income from other sources. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- a) CIT v. Chinna Constructions (2006) 297 ITR 70 (Kar) b) CIT v. Koshika Telecom Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 479 (Del) c) ACIT v. Allied Construction (2007) 106 TTJ 616 (Del Trib.) 42. The CIT(Appeals) was of the view that interest received from bank was not connected with the business of the undertaking of the assessee. Relying on the decisions of K. Ravindramatham Nair v. Dy. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 669 (Ker) and MKR Frozen Food Expert v. ITO (2010) 126 ITD 1 (Del), the CIT(A) held that there was no linkage betwee…

M/S International Stones I P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1475/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…2010-11 and not to be treated as income from other sources. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- a) CIT v. Chinna Constructions (2006) 297 ITR 70 (Kar) b) CIT v. Koshika Telecom Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 479 (Del) c) ACIT v. Allied Construction (2007) 106 TTJ 616 (Del Trib.) 42. The CIT(Appeals) was of the view that interest received from bank was not connected with the business of the undertaking of the assessee. Relying on the decisions of K. Ravindramatham Nair v. Dy. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 669 (Ker) and MKR Frozen Food Expert v. ITO (2010) 126 ITD 1 (Del), the CIT(A) held that there was no linkage betwee…

M/S |Nternational Stones I P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1474/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…2010-11 and not to be treated as income from other sources. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- a) CIT v. Chinna Constructions (2006) 297 ITR 70 (Kar) b) CIT v. Koshika Telecom Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 479 (Del) c) ACIT v. Allied Construction (2007) 106 TTJ 616 (Del Trib.) 42. The CIT(Appeals) was of the view that interest received from bank was not connected with the business of the undertaking of the assessee. Relying on the decisions of K. Ravindramatham Nair v. Dy. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 669 (Ker) and MKR Frozen Food Expert v. ITO (2010) 126 ITD 1 (Del), the CIT(A) held that there was no linkage betwee…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S International Stones India P Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1332/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…2010-11 and not to be treated as income from other sources. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- a) CIT v. Chinna Constructions (2006) 297 ITR 70 (Kar) b) CIT v. Koshika Telecom Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 479 (Del) c) ACIT v. Allied Construction (2007) 106 TTJ 616 (Del Trib.) 42. The CIT(Appeals) was of the view that interest received from bank was not connected with the business of the undertaking of the assessee. Relying on the decisions of K. Ravindramatham Nair v. Dy. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 669 (Ker) and MKR Frozen Food Expert v. ITO (2010) 126 ITD 1 (Del), the CIT(A) held that there was no linkage betwee…

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

…ITA 357/2010 Page 1 of 18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 357/2010 Reserved on : 16th December, 2010 % Date of decision: 11th March, 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-IV ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel versus Jaypee DSC Ventures Ltd. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. S. Krishnan, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE…