CIT v. Orissa Cement Ltd.

258 ITR 365High Court2002#4026 most cited
30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 195Section 35DSection 40(a)(ia)Section 40A(2)(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 5(2)section 35dinterest free advancesmaximum marginal ratesection 40a(2)(b)section 40a(2)business expediencywritten down valuesection 36(1)(iii)commercial expediencyrejection of books of account

Judgments citing CIT v. Orissa Cement Ltd.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DELHI-7 vs. M/S V C SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.

ITA - 515 / 2025HC Delhi13 Oct 2025
Section 14A

…ated parties but not charged interest while the entire interest has been debited in the P&L account. The AO found that the assessee has given interest free loans to the tune of Rs.31,48,67,900/-. Placing reliance on the judgment of CIT Vs. Orissa Cements Ltd. 258 ITR 365 (Del.) and CIT Vs . Abhishek Industries 156 Taxman 257, the AO disallowed the proportionate, interest of Rs .52,57,829/- taking into consideration, the interest free loan given by the assessee. The gist of the decisions relied upon by the AO is as under: "1. CIT vs. Orissa Cements Ltd. - DELHI HC [2002] 258 ITR 365 (Delhi). “the part of the capit…

DCIT, C-V, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…for non-business purposes and at the same time there are interest bearing borrowing, the interest paid on borrowed funds should not be allowed as an item of expenditure to the extent of the funds diverted. It was held in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. 258 ITR 365 (Del) that the court cannot shut its eyes to reality. Had the advances not been made, borrowings would have been less. Similar was the view held in the case of CIT Vs. HP Sugar Factory Put. Ltd. (All)187 ITR 363. 7.7 The assessee has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of SA Builders. The facts in the two cases are completely dif…

RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 279/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-6, Jaipur [ For Short Ao ] U/S 143

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143Section 145ASection 36(1)(va)

…diaries by abolishing sole selling agencies, was found to be contrary to such policy intermediaries by abolishing sole selling agencies, was found to be contrary to such policy and, therefore, not allowable as was observed in CIT Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 365(Delhi). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that even if a payment is not illegal, it can be disallowed because it is contrary to Government policy. Also, the export pass fee paid by the assessee under protest is clearly a contingent liability, as negotiations between the Govt. is going on and the liability of the assessee to pay export pass fe…

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED, NEHRU SEHKAR BHAWAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 235/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-6, Jaipur [ For Short Ao ] U/S 143

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143Section 145ASection 36(1)(va)

…diaries by abolishing sole selling agencies, was found to be contrary to such policy intermediaries by abolishing sole selling agencies, was found to be contrary to such policy and, therefore, not allowable as was observed in CIT Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 365(Delhi). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that even if a payment is not illegal, it can be disallowed because it is contrary to Government policy. Also, the export pass fee paid by the assessee under protest is clearly a contingent liability, as negotiations between the Govt. is going on and the liability of the assessee to pay export pass fe…

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…. reported in (2012) 23 taxman.com 350 (Delhi). (v).Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Inds. V. CIT, reported in (2010) 324 ITR (Delhi). (vi).The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Cement Ltd., reported in (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Delhi). (vii)The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. V.I. Baby & Co., reported in (2002) 254 ITR 248 (Kerala). (viii)The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd., reported in (1991) 187 ITR 363 (Allahabad). (ix) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of A. Murali & Co. (P.) Ltd. V. AC…

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 236/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…. reported in (2012) 23 taxman.com 350 (Delhi). (v).Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Inds. V. CIT, reported in (2010) 324 ITR (Delhi). (vi).The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Cement Ltd., reported in (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Delhi). (vii)The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. V.I. Baby & Co., reported in (2002) 254 ITR 248 (Kerala). (viii)The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd., reported in (1991) 187 ITR 363 (Allahabad). (ix) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of A. Murali & Co. (P.) Ltd. V. AC…

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 235/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…. reported in (2012) 23 taxman.com 350 (Delhi). (v).Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Inds. V. CIT, reported in (2010) 324 ITR (Delhi). (vi).The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Cement Ltd., reported in (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Delhi). (vii)The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. V.I. Baby & Co., reported in (2002) 254 ITR 248 (Kerala). (viii)The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd., reported in (1991) 187 ITR 363 (Allahabad). (ix) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of A. Murali & Co. (P.) Ltd. V. AC…

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 234/RJT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…. reported in (2012) 23 taxman.com 350 (Delhi). (v).Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Inds. V. CIT, reported in (2010) 324 ITR (Delhi). (vi).The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Cement Ltd., reported in (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Delhi). (vii)The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. V.I. Baby & Co., reported in (2002) 254 ITR 248 (Kerala). (viii)The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd., reported in (1991) 187 ITR 363 (Allahabad). (ix) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of A. Murali & Co. (P.) Ltd. V. AC…

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 233/RJT/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…. reported in (2012) 23 taxman.com 350 (Delhi). (v).Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Inds. V. CIT, reported in (2010) 324 ITR (Delhi). (vi).The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Cement Ltd., reported in (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Delhi). (vii)The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. V.I. Baby & Co., reported in (2002) 254 ITR 248 (Kerala). (viii)The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd., reported in (1991) 187 ITR 363 (Allahabad). (ix) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of A. Murali & Co. (P.) Ltd. V. AC…

KANDLA EXPORT CORPORATION,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the summaries and concise ground No

ITA 155/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.135/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Kandla Exports Corporation Income – Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Ahmedabad – 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.136/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Kandla Exports Corporation Vs Income – Tax, Central Circle – Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, . 2(3), 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Bhavan, Ahmedabad - 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent)

…reported in (2012) 23 taxman.com 350 (Delhi). (v).Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Inds. V. CIT, reported in (2010) 324 ITR (Delhi). (vi).The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Cement Ltd., reported in (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Delhi). (vii)The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. V.I. Baby & Co., reported in (2002) 254 ITR 248 (Kerala). (viii)The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd., reported in (1991) 187 ITR 363 (Allahabad). (ix) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of A. Murali & Co. (P.) Ltd. V.…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(1), NEW DELHI vs. V C SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1884/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. P. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)

…ated parties but not charged interest while the entire interest has been debited in the P&L account. The AO found that the assessee has given interest free loans to the tune of Rs.31,48,67,900/-. Placing reliance on the judgment of CIT Vs. Orissa Cements Ltd. 258 ITR 365 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries 156 Taxman 257, the AO disallowed the proportionate interest of Rs.52,57,829/- taking into consideration, the interest free loan given by the assessee. The gist of the decisions relied upon by the AO is as under: “1. CIT vs. Orissa Cements Ltd. - DELHI HC [2002] 258 ITR 365 (Delhi). "the part of the capita…

DCIT, MORADABAD vs. SH. JUBILANT LIFE SCIENCES LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6196/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

…which cannot be sold to any third person will qualify for deduction under Section 80-IA of Income Tax Act, 1961?. The honourable High Court answered same as under:- "11. A similar issue was raised before Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 412 (Delhi), where deduction under Section 80-I was claimed on profits derived from captive consumption of limestone excavated from mines and thereafter used for manufacture of cement in plant of assessee. Revenue‟s submission that one cannot earn profit by indulging in business with oneself, was rejected to negate claim. Division Bench relying on Ta…

DCIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. JUBILANT ORGANOSYES LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4827/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

…which cannot be sold to any third person will qualify for deduction under Section 80-IA of Income Tax Act, 1961?. The honourable High Court answered same as under:- "11. A similar issue was raised before Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 412 (Delhi), where deduction under Section 80-I was claimed on profits derived from captive consumption of limestone excavated from mines and thereafter used for manufacture of cement in plant of assessee. Revenue‟s submission that one cannot earn profit by indulging in business with oneself, was rejected to negate claim. Division Bench relying on Ta…

M/S. JUBILANT LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ADDL.CIT, MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4638/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

…which cannot be sold to any third person will qualify for deduction under Section 80-IA of Income Tax Act, 1961?. The honourable High Court answered same as under:- "11. A similar issue was raised before Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 412 (Delhi), where deduction under Section 80-I was claimed on profits derived from captive consumption of limestone excavated from mines and thereafter used for manufacture of cement in plant of assessee. Revenue‟s submission that one cannot earn profit by indulging in business with oneself, was rejected to negate claim. Division Bench relying on Ta…

M/S. JUBILANT LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ADDL.CIT, MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4637/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

…which cannot be sold to any third person will qualify for deduction under Section 80-IA of Income Tax Act, 1961?. The honourable High Court answered same as under:- "11. A similar issue was raised before Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 412 (Delhi), where deduction under Section 80-I was claimed on profits derived from captive consumption of limestone excavated from mines and thereafter used for manufacture of cement in plant of assessee. Revenue‟s submission that one cannot earn profit by indulging in business with oneself, was rejected to negate claim. Division Bench relying on Ta…

M/S IOL CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-I, LUDHIANA

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

ITA 1419/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jun 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 115JSection 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)

…(SC) • Crescent Organics (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 128 (Bom) • Hero Cycles (SC) Civil Appeal No. 514 of 2008 • CIT Vs. Kapsons Associates (2017) 79 taxmann.com 364 (P&H) • CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. 286 ITR 1 • CIT Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. 258 ITR 365 (Del) • CIT Vs. H.P. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. (All) 187 ITR 363 6. Now the Assessee is in appeal. 7. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the debit balance was on account of payment made to the third parties by the assessee on behalf of the M/s G. Drugs and Pharmaceu…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6/VIZ/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar – AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N. Murthy – CIT DR
Section 263Section 32

…elied on the following decisions on the issue of captive consumption:- a) West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., Vs. ACIT [(2006) 103 ITR 19 (Mum.) (ITAT)] b) Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd. Vs. ACIT [(2011) 338 ITR 643 (Mad. – HC)] c) CIT Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd., [(2002) 254 ITR 412 (Delhi – HC)] 18 Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of the Hyderabad tribunal in assessee’s own case and the ld.DR did not bring any other case-law of jurisdictional High Court or Apex Court to controvert the submission of the assessee, respectfully following the view taken by this Tribunal in assessee’s o…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5/VIZ/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar – AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N. Murthy – CIT DR
Section 263Section 32

…elied on the following decisions on the issue of captive consumption:- a) West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., Vs. ACIT [(2006) 103 ITR 19 (Mum.) (ITAT)] b) Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd. Vs. ACIT [(2011) 338 ITR 643 (Mad. – HC)] c) CIT Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd., [(2002) 254 ITR 412 (Delhi – HC)] 18 Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of the Hyderabad tribunal in assessee’s own case and the ld.DR did not bring any other case-law of jurisdictional High Court or Apex Court to controvert the submission of the assessee, respectfully following the view taken by this Tribunal in assessee’s o…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4/VIZ/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar – AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N. Murthy – CIT DR
Section 263Section 32

…elied on the following decisions on the issue of captive consumption:- a) West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., Vs. ACIT [(2006) 103 ITR 19 (Mum.) (ITAT)] b) Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd. Vs. ACIT [(2011) 338 ITR 643 (Mad. – HC)] c) CIT Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd., [(2002) 254 ITR 412 (Delhi – HC)] 18 Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of the Hyderabad tribunal in assessee’s own case and the ld.DR did not bring any other case-law of jurisdictional High Court or Apex Court to controvert the submission of the assessee, respectfully following the view taken by this Tribunal in assessee’s o…

ITO,WD-12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S S. B. PIGMENTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 324/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.324/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Robin Choudhury, Add. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40a

…interest on such borrowings was held not deductible. Interest on borrowed capital used for advancing interest-free loans to subsidiary company, Lions Club and EmployeesConsumers Co-operative stores has been held not deductible CIT v Orissa Cement Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 365, 368, 369-70 (Del). In view of the above, whole sum of interest paid of Rs. 77,89,408/- is disallowed, being not incidental to the assessee's business activity and added back to the total income of the assessee." 16. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has deleted t…

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2