CIT v. Land Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd.

357 ITR 763High Court2013#12678 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

Issues it is cited on

section 131(1)(d)revision under section 263malabar industrialerroneous and prejudicialsection 131section 37section 133(6)undisclosed incomesection 263section 26scrutiny assessmentsection 13

Judgments citing CIT v. Land Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd.

Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Kanpur vs. Pr CIT, Central, Kanpur

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 190/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…Act does not permit substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Assessing Officer who pass the assessment order, unless order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. In the case of CIT v Land Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd (2013) 357 ITR 763 (Mad): It was held by Hon'ble High Court that whether adequate inquiries were made by the Assessing Officer was pure and simple factual finding. It was also held that the assumption of revisional jurisdiction can be justified only on the basis of materials indicating that the order of the assessment was payable of erroneous and prejudicial to th…

Horizon Dwellings Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

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

ITA 77/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Act does not permit substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Assessing Officer who pass the assessment order, unless order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. In the case of CIT v Land Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd (2013) 357 ITR 763 (Mad): It was held by Hon'ble High Court that whether adequate inquiries were made by the Assessing Officer was pure and simple factual finding. It was also held that the assumption of revisional jurisdiction can be justified only on the basis of materials indicating that the order of the assessment was payable of erroneous and prejudicial to th…

Shri Chetan Sharma, Kanpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur

In the result, both appeals are allowed

ITA 343/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 153DSection 263

…Act does not permit substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Assessing Officer who pass the assessment order, unless order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. In the case of CIT v Land Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd (2013) 357 ITR 763 (Mad): It was held by Hon'ble High Court that whether adequate inquiries were made by the Assessing Officer was pure and simple factual finding. It was also held that the assumption of revisional jurisdiction can be justified only on the basis of materials indicating that the order of the assessment was payable of erroneous and prejudicial to th…

Shri Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Korba, Korba(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

ITA 94/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

…(i) Voltas Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT (2009) 125 TTJ (Mum.) 601 (ii) K.J Arora Vs. Dy. CIT (2009) 180 Taxman 131 (Delhi) (iii) DIT (International Taxation) Vs. BNP Paribas SA (2013) Taxman 548 (Bom.) (iv) CIT Vs. L & T Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 763 (Mad.) (v) CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 338 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (2013) 37 Taxman 142(Guj.) 23. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the…

Shri Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Korba, Korba(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

ITA 93/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

…(i) Voltas Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT (2009) 125 TTJ (Mum.) 601 (ii) K.J Arora Vs. Dy. CIT (2009) 180 Taxman 131 (Delhi) (iii) DIT (International Taxation) Vs. BNP Paribas SA (2013) Taxman 548 (Bom.) (iv) CIT Vs. L & T Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 763 (Mad.) (v) CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 338 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (2013) 37 Taxman 142(Guj.) 23. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the…

Sri Chamundeswari Sugars Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13

ITA 1499/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sri Chamundeswari Sugars Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.88/5, Richmond Road, Income Tax, Bangalore. Circle - 6(1)(2), Pan : Aaccs 5004 R Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit-Dr-I Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-DR-I
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ve the following judicial pronouncements which clearly held that only after giving and finding fact that borrowed funds have been utilised to acquire the financial assets yielding tax free income. a. CIT Vs. L&T Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd [(2014) 357 ITR 763(Madras)] b. CIT Vs. Gujarat Apollo Industries Ltd [(2015 55 taxmann.com 158(Gujarat)] c. CIT Vs. Deepak Mittal [(2013) 323 ITR 131(Punjab & Haryana)] d. CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Ltd [(2010) 323 ITR 518 (Punjab & Haryana)] 4. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income. The CI…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Auro Mira Energy Company Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1960/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri, M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: None
Section 14A

…e on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs UTI Bank Ltd reported in 32 taxmann.com 370 (Guj) and decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs L&T Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd reported in 357 ITR 763 (Mad), deleted the disallowance made under second limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. Moreover, it was further pleaded that the investment made in subsidiaries have to be excluded considering the same as strategic investments and to protect the business interest of the assessee company and they were not made with a view to earn dividend income. Re…

Texmo Industries, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 320/CHNY/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A. Dhananjayan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80I

…with evidence of the partners current account balance as on 31.03.2010 being "132.77 and filed copy of Audited Balance sheet and relied on the judicial decisions:- ITA No. 320/16. :- 4 -: (i) CIT vs. L and T Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd (2013) 357 ITR 763 (Mad). (ii) CIT vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd 319 ITR 204 (P& H) (iii) Director of Income Tax (IT)-II vs. BNP Paribas SA- 32 Taxmann.com 276 (Bombay) (iv) Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT (2008) 168 Taxman 43 (SC). (v) Asst. CIT vs Keshav Shares & Stocks Ltd in ITA No.4394/Del/2011, decided on 26.04.2013. The ld. Authorised Representative fu…

CIT v. Land Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd. (357 ITR 763) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax