CIT v. Kutch Minerals

3 DTR 11Reported decision2008#24299 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 353,911 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

admission of additional evidencefurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularsrule 46asection 43brevenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 43section 37(1)transferprescribedcompany

Judgments citing CIT v. Kutch Minerals

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. M/S Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd, Panaji

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 99/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

…n specifically by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 721 (SC) is that royalty is not tax. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Kutch Minerals [2008] 03 DTR 11 M/s.Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd. (Guj.) has held that royalty is not tax and hence the provisions of sec.43B would not be attracted. When the merits of addition under the said provision is not sustainable, then in such scenario, the issue whether there has been any violation of Rule 46A by the ld. CIT(A) while providing relief to the assessee on this very…

M/S Salitho Ores Private Limited, Panaji vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - M1, Margao

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 72/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

…n specifically by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 721 (SC) is that royalty is not tax. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Kutch Minerals [2008] 03 DTR 11 M/s.Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd. (Guj.) has held that royalty is not tax and hence the provisions of sec.43B would not be attracted. When the merits of addition under the said provision is not sustainable, then in such scenario, the issue whether there has been any violation of Rule 46A by the ld. CIT(A) while providing relief to the assessee on this very…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. M/S Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd, Panaji

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

…n specifically by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 721 (SC) is that royalty is not tax. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Kutch Minerals [2008] 03 DTR 11 M/s.Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd. (Guj.) has held that royalty is not tax and hence the provisions of sec.43B would not be attracted. When the merits of addition under the said provision is not sustainable, then in such scenario, the issue whether there has been any violation of Rule 46A by the ld. CIT(A) while providing relief to the assessee on this very…

CIT v. Kutch Minerals (3 DTR 11) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax