CIT v. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

216 Taxmann 92High Court2013#1730 most cited

What is CIT v. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

A joint venture formed solely to secure a contract, with each partner having a distinctly outlined scope of work and individual responsibility, is not considered an 'Association of Persons' for income tax purposes.

66

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Oriental Structural Engineers · Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. · 374 ITR 35 · 216 Taxmann 92 · Joint Venture · Association of Persons · AoP · distinct scope of work · taxability of JV · not AoP

Also reported as

374 ITR 35

Issues it is cited on

section 36(i)short deduction of tdssection 10(2)section 43asection 36(1)(viii)strategic investmentdisallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 80ia(4)infrastructure facilitysection 194jsection 10(34)business expediency

Judgments citing CIT v. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Indiabulls Retail Service Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1165/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1165/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Retail Service Ltd, Tax-7(1), Room No.622, (Formerly Knows As Pyramid Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Retails Ltd, Now Known As M K Road, M/S Store One Retails India Mumbai-400020 (Ltd),11Th Floor, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Elibhinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aadcp5164C आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5732/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Wholesale Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- 3(2), Services Ltd, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, M K Road, Connaught Place, Mumbai-400020 New Delhi-110001 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6081/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Wholesale Tax-3(2), Services Ltd, Vs. Room No.674, 6Th Floor, 14Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Indiabulls Finance Centre, M K Road, Tower No.1, Plot No.612-613, Mumbai-400020 Elibhinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aabci7129N अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri Javed Akhatar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By S/Shri Jitendra Sangvi & Amit Khatiwalla

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56Section 57

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “आई” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1165/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Commissioner of Income बनधम/ M/s Indiabulls Retail Service Ltd, Tax-7(1), Room No.622, (Formerly knows as Pyramid Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Retails Ltd, Now known as M K Road, M/s Store One Retails India Mumbai-400020 (Ltd),11th floor, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Elibhinstone road (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ PAN : AADCP5164C आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5732/Mum/2014 (नन…

Saurashtra Fuels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA No 7274/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 7273/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra(D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80M

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7273-74/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2009-10) Saurashtra Fuels Private Deputy Commissioner of बनाम/ Limited, C/o M/s Kucheria & Income Tax, circle 3(3) , v. Associates, 59, Jolly Maker 6 th Floor, Aayakar No.-2 Nariman Point, Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400021 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAACS7271G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri B.V.Jhaveri Revenue by : Shri Ri…

Af-Taab Investment Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3684/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3684/Mum/2012 & I.T.A. No.8981/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 & 2005-06) Af-Taab Investment Company The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Limited 2(1)(2) Vs. Corporate Centre, ‘B’ Block, Mumbai 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai - 400009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4800H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,“ए” "यायपीठ, मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी बी. आर. बा"करन, लेखा सद"य यवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3684/Mum/2012 & I.T.A. No.8981/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 & 2005-06) Af-taab Investment Company The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Limited 2(1)(2) Vs. Corporate Centre, ‘B’ Block, Mumbai 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai - 400009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACA4800H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)…

Jaycee Homes Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1067/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Jigar Commodities & Ito-8(2)(1), Derivatives P. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 301-308 Bhagwati House, M.K. Road, Vs. P.Lot A/19 Veera Desai Rd. Mumbai-400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400058 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacj1728P

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,J,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI Before Shri C.N. Prasad, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jigar Commodities & ITO-8(2)(1), Derivatives P. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 301-308 Bhagwati House, M.K. Road, Vs. P.Lot A/19 Veera Desai Rd. Mumbai-400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400058 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.AAACJ1728P "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (AR) Shri Ashish Heliwal, (DR) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by 07/03/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Dat…

Oriental Structure Engineers P.L.- Gammon India Ltd.- Jv, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed with the aforesaid observations

ITA 5557/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal

For Appellant: Shri Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Robin Rawal, Senior DR
Section 56

…ded vide ITA No.5556/Del/2015. 4. I heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same along with the orders of the tax authorities below. I noted that in the case of the assessee Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of the assessee reported in 374 ITR 35 at page 44 held as under :- “11. In the present case too, the Court is of opinion that the consistent and concurring opinions of CIT (A) and ITAT were that the JV was formed only to secure the contract, in terms of which the scope of each JV partner’s task was distinctly outlined. Further, the entire work was split between the two JV partners; th…

Oriental Structure Engineers P.L.- Kmc Construction Ltd.- Jv, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed with the aforesaid observations

ITA 5556/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal

For Appellant: Shri Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Robin Rawal, Senior DR
Section 56

…ded vide ITA No.5556/Del/2015. 4. I heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same along with the orders of the tax authorities below. I noted that in the case of the assessee Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of the assessee reported in 374 ITR 35 at page 44 held as under :- “11. In the present case too, the Court is of opinion that the consistent and concurring opinions of CIT (A) and ITAT were that the JV was formed only to secure the contract, in terms of which the scope of each JV partner’s task was distinctly outlined. Further, the entire work was split between the two JV partners; th…