CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd.

33 ITR 681High Court1958#590 most cited

What is CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. authority for?

An addition to income is revenue neutral if its tax impact remains the same regardless of the year in which it is assessed. Assessments should not dispute the year of addition when the tax rate and impact are consistent, to avoid unnecessary disputes and potential loss to revenue.

165

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. · 33 ITR 681 · revenue neutral · timing difference · pragmatic view · year of addition · impact of tax · loss to revenue · permissible deduction · Income Tax Act

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 194HSection 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 115JBSection 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

section 145(1)section 211section 145(2)project completion methodsection 35dpercentage completion methodsection 21written down valuemercantile system of accountingretracted statementsection 35section 34

Judgments citing CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd.

West Bengal Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 6, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 963/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…nt in issue as erroneous causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue as per u/s263(1) Explanation(2) in view of the Assessing Officer’s failure in carrying out necessary enquiries. We proceed in these backdrop of facts that various judicial precedents (1958) 33 ITR 681 (Bom) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nagri Mills, (2014) 221 TAXMANN 80 (Bom) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mahangar Gas Ltd. and hon'ble Gujarat high court’s Tax Appeal No.685 of 2019 dated 16.09.2019 PCIT vs. Adani Enterprises inter alia hold that when an assessee is assessed at a uniform rate of tax year of raising an expenditure claim is of n…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT-31(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 4200/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

…plea has been raised not to disturb the same. To support these submissions, reliance has been placed on following binding judicial precedents: - (i) CIT V/s Excel Industries Ltd. -2013 358 ITR 295 – Hon’ble Supreme Court (ii) CIT V/s Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. 1958 33 ITR 681 – Hon’ble Bombay High Court (iii) CIT V/s Vishnu Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. – IT Ref. No. 229 (Delhi) of 1988 dated 06/05/2008 To support the plea of consistency, reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s DCIT -2017 394 ITR 449- Hon’ble Supreme Court (ii) Radhasoami Satsang V/s CIT – 199…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT-31(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 4199/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

…plea has been raised not to disturb the same. To support these submissions, reliance has been placed on following binding judicial precedents: - (i) CIT V/s Excel Industries Ltd. -2013 358 ITR 295 – Hon’ble Supreme Court (ii) CIT V/s Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. 1958 33 ITR 681 – Hon’ble Bombay High Court (iii) CIT V/s Vishnu Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. – IT Ref. No. 229 (Delhi) of 1988 dated 06/05/2008 To support the plea of consistency, reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s DCIT -2017 394 ITR 449- Hon’ble Supreme Court (ii) Radhasoami Satsang V/s CIT – 199…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT-31(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 4198/MUM/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

…plea has been raised not to disturb the same. To support these submissions, reliance has been placed on following binding judicial precedents: - (i) CIT V/s Excel Industries Ltd. -2013 358 ITR 295 – Hon’ble Supreme Court (ii) CIT V/s Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. 1958 33 ITR 681 – Hon’ble Bombay High Court (iii) CIT V/s Vishnu Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. – IT Ref. No. 229 (Delhi) of 1988 dated 06/05/2008 To support the plea of consistency, reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s DCIT -2017 394 ITR 449- Hon’ble Supreme Court (ii) Radhasoami Satsang V/s CIT – 199…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 6979/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

…plea has been raised not to disturb the same. To support these submissions, reliance has been placed on following binding judicial precedents: - (i) CIT V/s Excel Industries Ltd. -2013 358 ITR 295 – Hon’ble Supreme Court (ii) CIT V/s Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. 1958 33 ITR 681 – Hon’ble Bombay High Court (iii) CIT V/s Vishnu Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. – IT Ref. No. 229 (Delhi) of 1988 dated 06/05/2008 To support the plea of consistency, reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s DCIT -2017 394 ITR 449- Hon’ble Supreme Court (ii) Radhasoami Satsang V/s CIT – 199…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 6978/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

…plea has been raised not to disturb the same. To support these submissions, reliance has been placed on following binding judicial precedents: - (i) CIT V/s Excel Industries Ltd. -2013 358 ITR 295 – Hon’ble Supreme Court (ii) CIT V/s Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. 1958 33 ITR 681 – Hon’ble Bombay High Court (iii) CIT V/s Vishnu Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. – IT Ref. No. 229 (Delhi) of 1988 dated 06/05/2008 To support the plea of consistency, reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s DCIT -2017 394 ITR 449- Hon’ble Supreme Court (ii) Radhasoami Satsang V/s CIT – 199…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 6977/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

…plea has been raised not to disturb the same. To support these submissions, reliance has been placed on following binding judicial precedents: - (i) CIT V/s Excel Industries Ltd. -2013 358 ITR 295 – Hon’ble Supreme Court (ii) CIT V/s Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. 1958 33 ITR 681 – Hon’ble Bombay High Court (iii) CIT V/s Vishnu Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. – IT Ref. No. 229 (Delhi) of 1988 dated 06/05/2008 To support the plea of consistency, reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s DCIT -2017 394 ITR 449- Hon’ble Supreme Court (ii) Radhasoami Satsang V/s CIT – 199…

Cavalcade Properties P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 12(1)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4030/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am& Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4030/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…Court that the impugned method of accounting adopted by the assessee results in under-estimation of profits and is. therefore, rejected. Otherwise, the presumption would be that the entire exercise is revenue neutral... " - CIT vs Nagri Mills Co Ltd (1958) (33 ITR 681) (Bom HC), wherein it was observed that- 'We have often wondered why the Income-tax authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the Income-tax Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The questionas to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be mat…

Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd., Sikka vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jamnagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 184/RJT/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.184/Rjt/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) बनाम/ Shree Digvijay Cement Co. A.C.I.T, Ltd., Circle-2, Vs. Digvijaygram Sikka, Jamnagar. Jamnagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs0957J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Cit.D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 19/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Jamnagar [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 29/03/2011, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 21/12/2009 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2007-08. A.Y. 2007-08 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)

…us, there cannot be any loss to the revenue even if the assessee claimed such expenses in the year under consideration. In this regard we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd.[1958] 33 ITR 681 has held as under: "3. We have often wondered why the Income-tax authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the Income-tax Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rate…

Odisha State Beverages Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 130/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Before Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialmember Member & Laxmi Prasad Sahulaxmi Prasad Sahulaxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year :2014-2015 Odisha State Beverage Corpn Odisha State Beverage Corpn Vs. Acit, Acit, Corporate Corporate Circle Circle-1(2), Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Fortune Towers, Floor, Fortune Towers, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur Chandrasekharpur Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aaaco 6507 H Aaaco 6507 H (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shris.M.Keshkamat, Cit, Dr , Dr Date Of Hearing : 20 /08/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement :04/10/ 201 / 2019 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg,Jm C.M.Garg,Jm This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Dated 8.1.2018 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised Are As Under: Grounds Of Appeal Raised Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, ARFor Respondent: ShriS.M.Keshkamat, CIT, DR
Section 22Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIALMEMBER MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2014-2015 Odisha State Beverage Corpn Odisha State Beverage Corpn Vs. ACIT, ACIT, Corporate Corporate Circle Circle-1(2), Ltd., 2nd floor, Fortune Towers, floor, Fortune Towers, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur Chandrasekharpur Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AAACO 6507 H…

M/S. L & T Hochtief Seabird Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. The Dy It Cir 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2901/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 L&T Hochtief Seabird Joint Dy. Commissioner Of Venture Vs. Income Tax Range 12(2), Taxation Department, L&T Room No. 114, 1St Floor, House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Estate, Mumbai-400001 Marg, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaal0284E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nishant Samaiya, DR
Section 143

…& Steel Co. Ltd. (106 ITR 363), Realest Builders & Services Ltd. (307 ITR 202), Bilahari Investments (P.) Ltd. (299 ITR 1), Excel Industries Ltd. (358 ITR L&T Hochtief Seabird Joint 295), Snow White Food Products Co. Ltd. (141 ITR 861), Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (33 ITR 681), Balapur Vibhag Jungle Kamdar Mandal Ltd. (135 ITR 91), Alfa Laval India Ltd. (113 Taxman 740) and India Motor Parts & Accessories (P.) Ltd. (60 ITR 531). 24. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that these heavy tools, small tools, consumables have been used in subsequent years as reported by the special auditor in his report and therefore, the…

Mafatlal Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal and cross objection are partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5202/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 14ASection 37(1)

…the end of accounting period and some of the expenses of earlier years may be booked in current year, which should be allowed in the year in which they are booked/crystallized. 3. Reliance in this regard is placed on: a. CIT v/s. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (1958) 33 ITR 681 (Bom) b. CIT v/s. Vishnu Industrial Gases P. Ltd, (ITA No. 229/1988)(Delhi) c. Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v/s. JCIT (ITA. Nos. 1013/ Mum/2001 and 3863/Mum/2006) (Bombay Trib.) d. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. v/s. ACIT in ITA. No. 2212/Mum/2011 (BombayTrib.) e. Sterlite Industries India Ltd. (2006) 6 SOT 497 (…

Morarjee Realities Ltd. (Now Known As Peninsula Land Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T. Circle 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2135/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushilkumar Poddar
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45

…see in its computation of income for assessment year 2005-06 disallowed these expenses as prior period and hence, the same be allowed in the year under consideration. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Nagri Mills, 33 ITR 681 (Bom.) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Excel Industries Limited (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) for the proposition that if the tax rate has remained same for present and subsequent assessment year, then an expense which was otherwise allowable, ought to be allowed as the entire issue regarding year of tax becomes academic in absence of ta…

Shankala Realotrs P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3827/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Shankala Realtors Pvt. Income Tax Officer- Ltd. A/1, Swati Manor, Opp. Vs. 8(2)(1), Mumbai. Shivaji Mandir, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aaccs5344Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Shankala Realtors Pvt. Income Tax Officer- Ltd. A/1, Swati Manor, Opp. Vs. 7(2)(3),Mumbai. Shivaji Mandir, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aaccs5344Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shankala Realtors Pvt. Addl. Cit-7(2), Mumbai. Ltd. A/1, Swati Manor, Opp. Vs. Shivaji Mandir, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aaccs5344Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Anil Sathe, ARFor Respondent: Mr.Maurya Pratap, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…the decision in Awadesh Builders v. ITO 28 CCH 756 (Mum. Trib.), CIT v. Malibu Estates Pvt. Ltd. 32 CCH 262 (Delhi M/s Shankala Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Trib.), CIT v. Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd. 40 CCH 18 (Jodhpur Trib.) and CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd(1958) 33 ITR 681(Bom.). 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relies on the decision in ACIT v. Paras Build Call (P.) Ltd. (2015) 57 taxmann.com 112 (Delhi-Trib), ACIT v. Alcon Developers (2015) 54 taxamnn.com 54 (Panaji- Trib), Prestige Estate Projects Ltd. v. DCIT (2011) 129 ITD 342 (Bangalore) and Ace Real Estate & Developers v. ACIT (2018) 10…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Indus Towers Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2242/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…d. (2008) 307 ITR 202 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) v) CIT vs. Vishnu Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. (ITR No. 229/1988 [Del. Tri.]) vi) CIT vs. Dinesh Kumar Goel (2011) 331 ITR 10 (Del) vii) CIT vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (1958) 33 ITR 681 (Bom) 10. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. From the perusal of records it can be seen that the assessee debited an additional amount of Rs. 16,21,45,355 to P&L over and above the actual lease expenditure/revenue during the assessment year as the assessee adopted AS 19. The liability to pay i…

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1040/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…d. (2008) 307 ITR 202 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) v) CIT vs. Vishnu Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. (ITR No. 229/1988 [Del. Tri.]) vi) CIT vs. Dinesh Kumar Goel (2011) 331 ITR 10 (Del) vii) CIT vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (1958) 33 ITR 681 (Bom) 10. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. From the perusal of records it can be seen that the assessee debited an additional amount of Rs. 16,21,45,355 to P&L over and above the actual lease expenditure/revenue during the assessment year as the assessee adopted AS 19. The liability to pay i…

DCIT CC 38, Mumbai vs. K Sera Sera Productions Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Cc-36, Room No. M/S K. Sera Sera Productions 32(1), Ground Floor, Ltd., 18, 4Th Floor, Mohid Vs. Aayakarbhavan, Mumbai- Heights, Above Masala 400020. Mantra Restaurant, Lokhandwala Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaacg5103D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. D.G. Pansari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Satish Modi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Satish Modi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. D.G. Pansari, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…1 ITR 495, Kedarnath Jude Manufacturing Co Ltd. v. CIT 82 ITR 363, CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. Ltd. 43 ITR 144, Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Anr 91 ITR 18 K.S. Narayanswami Iyer v. CIT 29 ITR 515, CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. 33 ITR 681, CIT v. J.D. Italia 141 ITR 948. Responding to the contentions of the Ld. DR that books of accounts were not produced to verify the claim made by the assessee, the Ld. counsel submits that the assessee vide letter dated 02.12.2009 had submitted clarification regarding share application money wrongly credited to the P&L account along with the finan…

DCIT Cir 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4897/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Acit(Cir)-6(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., 264-265, Vaswani Chambers, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aabcd 1147 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri D.G. Pansari, Sr.Ar Cit Assessee By Shri P.J.Pardiwala,Ar Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar & Shri Ninad Patade, Ar Date Of Hearing 11/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2019

Section 143(3)

…2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v/s Vishnu Industrial Gasses Pvt. Ltd., ITR no.229/1988, daed 6th May 2008, as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Nagri Mills Co. Ltd., [1958] 33 ITR 681, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. The learned Departmental Representative relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer submitted, since the major portion of the work was completed in the impugned assessment year, it should have been shown as work–in–progress in the accounts of the asse…

The DCIT., Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Amjay Medi-Max India Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2695/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri A. L. Thakkar, A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2695/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) DCIT, Vs. Amjay Medimax India Pvt. Ltd., Max House, 4th Floor Circle – 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Opp. Karnavati Hospital, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – 380 006. [PAN No. AABCA 8241 R] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R. Respondent by : Shri A. L. Thakkar, A.R. Date of Hearing 14.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2019 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the re…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Chittorgarh Kota Toll Way Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2514/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jaimin Shah
Section 801ASection 80I

…same as compared to earlier year and there is no loss to the revenue. 11. In support of its contention, ld. A.R. cited a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Vishnu Industrial Gases P. Ltd. vs. CIT which was followed in the case of CIT vs. Nagri Mills 33 ITR 681 wherein it is held that “ where the department had not disputed that the expenditure was deductible in principle but was only disputing the year in which the deduction could be allowed. Held, castigating the department, that as the tax rates were the same in both years, the department should not fritter away its energies in raising questions as to…