CIT v. Pandavpur Sahakara Sakkara Kharkhane Ltd.

198 ITR 690High Court1992#5540 most cited
21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 33acsection 80hhesection 32asection 117section 210section 4asection 74section 73section 72section 115jasection 288section 80h

Judgments citing CIT v. Pandavpur Sahakara Sakkara Kharkhane Ltd.

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2741/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

…Molasses Storage Fund, namely, DCM Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2004] 192 CTR 0408, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (1998) 229 ITR 285, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 690, Somaiya Orgeno- Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1995) 216 ITR 291. On the issue of Debt Redemption Reserve, again reliance is placed upon decision in National Rayon Corporation (supra) to the effect that the amount was neither a reserve nor a provision for unascertained liability so as to attract clause (b) or (c) of Explanation 1…

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3568/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

…Molasses Storage Fund, namely, DCM Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2004] 192 CTR 0408, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (1998) 229 ITR 285, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 690, Somaiya Orgeno- Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1995) 216 ITR 291. On the issue of Debt Redemption Reserve, again reliance is placed upon decision in National Rayon Corporation (supra) to the effect that the amount was neither a reserve nor a provision for unascertained liability so as to attract clause (b) or (c) of Explanation 1…

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5118/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

…Molasses Storage Fund, namely, DCM Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2004] 192 CTR 0408, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (1998) 229 ITR 285, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 690, Somaiya Orgeno- Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1995) 216 ITR 291. On the issue of Debt Redemption Reserve, again reliance is placed upon decision in National Rayon Corporation (supra) to the effect that the amount was neither a reserve nor a provision for unascertained liability so as to attract clause (b) or (c) of Explanation 1…

M/S GOGGA GURUSANTHAIAH AND BROTHERS ,HOSPET vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3319/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…IT) (j) A F Ferguson & Co vs. ACIT (2011- TIOL-604-ITAT-Mum) (k) CIT vs. PandavapuraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd 11 ITA Nos.3317-3319/Bang/2018. M/s.Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers. (1988)(174 ITR 475)(Kar) (l) CIT vs. PandavapuraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd (198 ITR 690 (Kar)) 7.6. Ld.Councel submitted that the amount retained by MC for contribution to SPV is not taxable in the hands of the assessee, as the same has been diverted at source by overriding title as per the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submitted that there is no principal and agent relationship between the assessee and MC. Hence it cannot be…

M/S GOGGA GURUSANTHAIAH AND BROTHERS ,HOSPET vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3318/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…IT) (j) A F Ferguson & Co vs. ACIT (2011- TIOL-604-ITAT-Mum) (k) CIT vs. PandavapuraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd 11 ITA Nos.3317-3319/Bang/2018. M/s.Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers. (1988)(174 ITR 475)(Kar) (l) CIT vs. PandavapuraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd (198 ITR 690 (Kar)) 7.6. Ld.Councel submitted that the amount retained by MC for contribution to SPV is not taxable in the hands of the assessee, as the same has been diverted at source by overriding title as per the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submitted that there is no principal and agent relationship between the assessee and MC. Hence it cannot be…

M/S GOGGA GURUSANTHAIAH AND BROTHERS ,HOSPET vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3317/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…IT) (j) A F Ferguson & Co vs. ACIT (2011- TIOL-604-ITAT-Mum) (k) CIT vs. PandavapuraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd 11 ITA Nos.3317-3319/Bang/2018. M/s.Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers. (1988)(174 ITR 475)(Kar) (l) CIT vs. PandavapuraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd (198 ITR 690 (Kar)) 7.6. Ld.Councel submitted that the amount retained by MC for contribution to SPV is not taxable in the hands of the assessee, as the same has been diverted at source by overriding title as per the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submitted that there is no principal and agent relationship between the assessee and MC. Hence it cannot be…

M/S. VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & COMPANY,SANDUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT
Section 145Section 28Section 5

….CIT vs Gyan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., ITA 940/2016(DEL) dated 17/05/2018. viii. CIT vs United Breweries Ltd (2010) 321 ITR 4546 (KARN.). ix. CIT vs Pandavapura Sahakara karkhane Ltd. (1988) 174 ITR 475 (KARN). x. CIT vs Pandavapura Sahakara karkhane Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 690 (KARN.) xi. Poddar Project Ltd vs. CIT (2012) 211 Taxmann 493 (CAL) xii. Invest Exports, Gmbh. vs ACIT in ITA No. 371/Vizag/2002 by Order dated 13/05/2010 B.5.1.1. Ld.Counsel, then submitted that, there is no principal and agent relationship between assessee and CEC/MC, and that, CEC/MC was not acting on behalf of assessee, but was following dire…

M/S KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 866/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 57Section 57A

…n the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (KUIDFC) 284 ITR 582; CIT Vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produces Processing and Export Corporation Ltd. 377 ITR 496; CIT Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. 198 ITR 690. He relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. 116 ITR 60. Further he submitted that it cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee as it is received by the as with an obligation to spend as per Section 57A of the Co-operative Societies Act. For the purpose, he relied on the de…

M/S KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 865/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 57Section 57A

…n the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (KUIDFC) 284 ITR 582; CIT Vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produces Processing and Export Corporation Ltd. 377 ITR 496; CIT Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. 198 ITR 690. He relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. 116 ITR 60. Further he submitted that it cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee as it is received by the as with an obligation to spend as per Section 57A of the Co-operative Societies Act. For the purpose, he relied on the de…

M/S. KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 864/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 57Section 57A

…n the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (KUIDFC) 284 ITR 582; CIT Vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produces Processing and Export Corporation Ltd. 377 ITR 496; CIT Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. 198 ITR 690. He relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. 116 ITR 60. Further he submitted that it cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee as it is received by the as with an obligation to spend as per Section 57A of the Co-operative Societies Act. For the purpose, he relied on the de…

GENUS INNOVATION LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 824/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ’SMC’, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 824/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12. cuke M/s. Genus Innovation Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner of Vs. SPL-2B, RICO industrial Area, Income Tax, Sitapura, Tonk Road, Circle-2, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AACCG 4460 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pa…

ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2185/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1494/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Ito(Tds), Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2185, 1452& 1453/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 1439 & 1440/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Durgapur -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2155/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(E), Circle-2, Kolkata -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Arnab Chakraborty, Advocate Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Arnab Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…subject mentioned payments and hence consequentially the assessee could not be invited with liability u/s 201 and 201(1A) of the Act in respect of payments made to GEPIL. 7.3. We find that in the case of CIT vs Pandavpur Sahakara Sakkara Kharkhane Ltd (1992) 198 ITR 690 (Kar) , it was held that the amount set apart and meant for utilization only as per the directions of the State Govt. represents diversion of income and the same cannot be credited. It was held that the amount so set apart as per the statutory obligation is not liable to tax in the hands of the assessee. The SLP of the department before the Hon’b…

DCIT(E),CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2155/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1494/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Ito(Tds), Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2185, 1452& 1453/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 1439 & 1440/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Durgapur -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2155/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(E), Circle-2, Kolkata -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Arnab Chakraborty, Advocate Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Arnab Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…subject mentioned payments and hence consequentially the assessee could not be invited with liability u/s 201 and 201(1A) of the Act in respect of payments made to GEPIL. 7.3. We find that in the case of CIT vs Pandavpur Sahakara Sakkara Kharkhane Ltd (1992) 198 ITR 690 (Kar) , it was held that the amount set apart and meant for utilization only as per the directions of the State Govt. represents diversion of income and the same cannot be credited. It was held that the amount so set apart as per the statutory obligation is not liable to tax in the hands of the assessee. The SLP of the department before the Hon’b…

ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DURGAPUR vs. ITO(TDS), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1494/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1494/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Ito(Tds), Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2185, 1452& 1453/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 1439 & 1440/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Durgapur -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2155/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(E), Circle-2, Kolkata -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Arnab Chakraborty, Advocate Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Arnab Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…subject mentioned payments and hence consequentially the assessee could not be invited with liability u/s 201 and 201(1A) of the Act in respect of payments made to GEPIL. 7.3. We find that in the case of CIT vs Pandavpur Sahakara Sakkara Kharkhane Ltd (1992) 198 ITR 690 (Kar) , it was held that the amount set apart and meant for utilization only as per the directions of the State Govt. represents diversion of income and the same cannot be credited. It was held that the amount so set apart as per the statutory obligation is not liable to tax in the hands of the assessee. The SLP of the department before the Hon’b…

ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1453/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1494/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Ito(Tds), Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2185, 1452& 1453/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 1439 & 1440/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Durgapur -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2155/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(E), Circle-2, Kolkata -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Arnab Chakraborty, Advocate Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Arnab Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…subject mentioned payments and hence consequentially the assessee could not be invited with liability u/s 201 and 201(1A) of the Act in respect of payments made to GEPIL. 7.3. We find that in the case of CIT vs Pandavpur Sahakara Sakkara Kharkhane Ltd (1992) 198 ITR 690 (Kar) , it was held that the amount set apart and meant for utilization only as per the directions of the State Govt. represents diversion of income and the same cannot be credited. It was held that the amount so set apart as per the statutory obligation is not liable to tax in the hands of the assessee. The SLP of the department before the Hon’b…

ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1452/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1494/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Ito(Tds), Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2185, 1452& 1453/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 1439 & 1440/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Durgapur -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2155/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(E), Circle-2, Kolkata -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Arnab Chakraborty, Advocate Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Arnab Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…subject mentioned payments and hence consequentially the assessee could not be invited with liability u/s 201 and 201(1A) of the Act in respect of payments made to GEPIL. 7.3. We find that in the case of CIT vs Pandavpur Sahakara Sakkara Kharkhane Ltd (1992) 198 ITR 690 (Kar) , it was held that the amount set apart and meant for utilization only as per the directions of the State Govt. represents diversion of income and the same cannot be credited. It was held that the amount so set apart as per the statutory obligation is not liable to tax in the hands of the assessee. The SLP of the department before the Hon’b…

ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1440/KOL/2016[20121-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1494/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Ito(Tds), Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2185, 1452& 1453/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 1439 & 1440/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Durgapur -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2155/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(E), Circle-2, Kolkata -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Arnab Chakraborty, Advocate Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Arnab Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…subject mentioned payments and hence consequentially the assessee could not be invited with liability u/s 201 and 201(1A) of the Act in respect of payments made to GEPIL. 7.3. We find that in the case of CIT vs Pandavpur Sahakara Sakkara Kharkhane Ltd (1992) 198 ITR 690 (Kar) , it was held that the amount set apart and meant for utilization only as per the directions of the State Govt. represents diversion of income and the same cannot be credited. It was held that the amount so set apart as per the statutory obligation is not liable to tax in the hands of the assessee. The SLP of the department before the Hon’b…

ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DURGAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1439/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1494/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Ito(Tds), Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2185, 1452& 1453/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Asansol Durgapur Development Authority -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Durgapur [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 1439 & 1440/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Durgapur -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2155/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit(E), Circle-2, Kolkata -Vs- Asansol Durgapur Development Authority [Pan: Aaala 0733 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Arnab Chakraborty, Advocate Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Arnab Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…subject mentioned payments and hence consequentially the assessee could not be invited with liability u/s 201 and 201(1A) of the Act in respect of payments made to GEPIL. 7.3. We find that in the case of CIT vs Pandavpur Sahakara Sakkara Kharkhane Ltd (1992) 198 ITR 690 (Kar) , it was held that the amount set apart and meant for utilization only as per the directions of the State Govt. represents diversion of income and the same cannot be credited. It was held that the amount so set apart as per the statutory obligation is not liable to tax in the hands of the assessee. The SLP of the department before the Hon’b…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II vs. M/S MODIPON LTD

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

C.A. No.-019763-019763 - 2017Supreme Court24 Nov 2017

Bench: Delving Into The Question Formulated One Significant Fact Common To The Appeals Involving The Assessee-Modipon Ltd. May Be Noted. From The Assessment Year 1984-1985 (From Which Assessment Year

Section 43B

…ted to the Revenue with the assessee having no domain over the amount(s) deposited. 10. In C.I.T. vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd.7 and C.I.T. vs. Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd.8 cited at the Bar, the High Courts of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh 7 198 ITR 690 (Kar.) 8 253 ITR 68 (AP) 12 respectively had occasion to consider as to whether the amounts credited to the Molasses Storage Fund out of the sale proceeds of molasses received by the assessee constitute taxable income of the assessee. Under the scheme, the assessee had no control over the amounts deposited in the fund and…

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 371 / 2012HC Delhi13 Feb 2015
Section 260ASection 32

…ar Mills Ltd 2015:DHC:1459-DB ITA Nos. 371/2012 & 372/2012 Page 8 of 24 (1998) 229 ITR 285, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 690, Somaiya Orgeno- Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1995) 216 ITR 291. On the issue of Debt Redemption Reserve, again reliance is placed upon decision in National Rayon Corporation (supra) to the effect that the amount was neither a reserve nor a provision for unascertained liability so as to attract clause (b) or (c) of Explanat…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2