CIT v. Pandian Chemicals Ltd.

233 ITR 497High Court1998#5374 most cited

What is CIT v. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. authority for?

Expenses that provide an enduring benefit to the assessee are capital in nature and cannot be claimed as a deduction under section 37(1).

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. · 233 ITR 497 · section 37(1) · capital expenditure · enduring benefit · business deduction

Also reported as

292 Taxmann 539

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 32Section 40A(2)(b)Section 43BSection 80IBSection 145ASection 24Section 37

Issues it is cited on

section 40(1)section 80iabsection 3asection 262section 160section 153(3)section 113section 40a(2)(a)section 114section 124section 155deduction under section 80ia

Judgments citing CIT v. Pandian Chemicals Ltd.

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 798/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6th Floor, Room No.608, 6th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCM9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessmen…

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 522/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6th Floor, Room No.608, 6th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCM9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessmen…

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 521/MUM/2019[2088-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2088-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6th Floor, Room No.608, 6th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCM9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessmen…

ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 7498/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.521/M/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 ITA No.3682/M/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITA No.522/M/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., 6th Floor, World Trade Centre, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (3)(2)(1), Vs. Room No.608, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCM9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.7498/M/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 ITA No.…

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPEMENT CO. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7258/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.521/M/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 ITA No.3682/M/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITA No.522/M/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., 6th Floor, World Trade Centre, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005 PAN: AADCM9623M (Appellant) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (3)(2)(1), Vs. Room No.608, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Respondent) ITA No.7498/M/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 ITA No.…

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPEMENT CO. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3704/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6th Floor, Room No.608, 6th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCM9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessmen…

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3682/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.521/M/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 ITA No.3682/M/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITA No.522/M/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., 6th Floor, World Trade Centre, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005 PAN: AADCM9623M (Appellant) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (3)(2)(1), Vs. Room No.608, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Respondent) ITA No.7498/M/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 ITA No.…

ADDL CIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

…Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, strongly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278 and also the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 497. 4. However, Mr. Murlidhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, strongly relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eltek SGS (P.) Ltd. [2008] 300 ITR 6 wherein the Delhi High Court has in fact considered the very same issue, and also the judgment relied upon by the Revenue and has 6698 M 2011 & C.O. N…

ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 7712/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

…Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, strongly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278 and also the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 497. 4. However, Mr. Murlidhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, strongly relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eltek SGS (P.) Ltd. [2008] 300 ITR 6 wherein the Delhi High Court has in fact considered the very same issue, and also the judgment relied upon by the Revenue and has 6698 M 2011 & C.O. N…

SANOFI INDIA LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6626/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

…Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, strongly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278 and also the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 497. 4. However, Mr. Murlidhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, strongly relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eltek SGS (P.) Ltd. [2008] 300 ITR 6 wherein the Delhi High Court has in fact considered the very same issue, and also the judgment relied upon by the Revenue and has 6698 M 2011 & C.O. N…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2248/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…ed that assessee obtained enduring benefit by incurring such expenses and therefore they were capital in nature. 7. The Ld.AO thus disallowed Rs.3,08,74,000/- under section 37(1) of the Act. In support the Ld.AO relied on: CIT vs.Pandian Chemicals reported in 233 ITR 497 Uttar Bharat Exchange Ltd. vs. CIT reorted in 55 ITR 550 Vikram Mills Ltd vs. CIT reported in 242 ITR 290 CIT vs.Kirloskar Tractors Ltd reported in 231 ITR 849 Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 8. The Ld.CIT(A) while considering disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, observed that assessee…

BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1849/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…ed that assessee obtained enduring benefit by incurring such expenses and therefore they were capital in nature. 7. The Ld.AO thus disallowed Rs.3,08,74,000/- under section 37(1) of the Act. In support the Ld.AO relied on: CIT vs.Pandian Chemicals reported in 233 ITR 497 Uttar Bharat Exchange Ltd. vs. CIT reorted in 55 ITR 550 Vikram Mills Ltd vs. CIT reported in 242 ITR 290 CIT vs.Kirloskar Tractors Ltd reported in 231 ITR 849 Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 8. The Ld.CIT(A) while considering disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, observed that assessee…

IL & FS WINDFARMS LAT ( PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS IL & FS ENERGY DEV. CO.LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6133/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shir S Rifaur Rahmanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6133 & 6134/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08

For Appellant: Ms. Vidya PhanseFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
Section 234BSection 234bSection 80I

…ust be understood as something which has a direct or immediate nexus with the assessee’s undertaking. Apart from this, in the said decision, the Apex Court has confirmed the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 497. We may, with respect, refer to some of the observations of the Madras High Court which are in the following terms: “Profits or gains eligible for deduction under section 8OHH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must be derived from the actual conduct of the business. The expression ‘derived from’ should be given a restricted meaning and whenever the L…

IG3 INFRA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT (OSD) CORPORATE RANGE 2, CHENNAI

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

ITA 770/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.770/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Acit(Osd), M/S. Ig3 Infra Pvt. Ltd., Chennai One, Pallavaram, Corporate Range – 2, Thoraipakkam 200 Feet Road, Chennai Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. Pan: Aabce2840C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 10ASection 80I

…lying on various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court viz., CIT vs. K. Ravindranathan Nair [2007] 295 ITR 228 (SC), Liberty India vs. CIT [2008] 317 ITR 218 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Pandian Chemicals Ltd., [1998] 233 ITR 497 (Mad) held that the income earned from the activity of infrastructure facility alone is to be regarded as “derived from the business”. The immediate source of the interest income is the bank / electricity deposit and not the infrastructure business of the assessee. Therefore, the electricity deposits and margin money deposits are not derived from…

SULPHUR MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 22/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. M.K. Patel, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 10BSection 115PSection 143(3)

…ed. After considering the submission of the assessee, the AO held that the interest receipts were not derived from exports. He referred to the cases of Cambay Electrical Supply Industrial Company. Ltd. (113 ITR 84), Sterling Foods and Pandiyan Chemicals Ltd. (233 ITR 497),that the interest income could at best be said to have been attributable to the export, that same was not derived from the business of the assessee, that gross interest receipts were to be disallowed for calculating the deduction u/s. lOB of the Act. For the similar reasons incomes credited under the head 'CSD refund receipt(Rs.9. 31 lacs), hand…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SMS PARYAVARAN (P) LTD., DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 205/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs Sms Paryavaran (P) Ltd. Circle-9(1), Room No. 163, Sh-2, Vardhaman Grand C. R. Building Plaza, Plot No-7, Mangalam New Delhi Place, Sector-3, Rohini Delhi Aaacs2177F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 80I

…SCC (2) 644 2. Sterling Foods vs. CIT 150 ITR 292 (Kar) 3. CIT vs. Jameel Leathers & Ors. 246 ITR 97 (Mad) 4. M/s Ashok Leyland vs. CIT (SC) decision dated 19.12.1996 4 5. CIT vs. Cement Distributors Ltd. 208 ITR 355 (Del.) 6. CIT vs. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. 233 ITR 497 (Mad) 8. The Ld. AR made an alternative plea that Section 37 of the Income Tax Act lays down that expenses incurred and income should be set off against that particular income. The Ld. AR further submitted that in the present case, the assessee company had only a negative bank balance/bank over draft and the FDRs made by them only out of such ov…

ACIT, CC-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, this ground is allowed

ITA 1370/KOL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Navin Verma & Nitin Agarwal, ARs
Section 143(3)

…while directing the AO to allow the deduction u/s. 80IA by considering the income from sale of scrap amounting to Rs.11,80,623/- as income eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA.” 8.1. The ld DR argued that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 233 ITR 497 (Mad) in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 262 ITR 278 (SC). He further argued that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the revenue in Pandian Chemicals Ltd case reported in 270 ITR 448 (Mad). He stated that the assessee had not furnished any details to prove as to how the scrap was generated an…

COASTAL GUJARAT POWER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2298/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No 2298/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Coastal Gujarat Power Limited, The Income Tax Officer 34, Sant Tukaram Road, 6(2)(1), फनाभ/ Carnac Bunder, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400009 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 अऩीराथी की ओय से / Applicant By : Shri Farrokh V Irani प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri M C Omi Ningshen सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of : 15.3.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated25.2.2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee Is Against Upholding The Order Of Assessing Officer As Regards Interest Income From Securities Deposited With Paschim Gujarat Vij Co.Ltd (Hereinafter Referred To As Pgvcl) For Availing Electricity For The Purposes Of Construction Of Power

For Respondent: Shri M C Omi Ningshen
Section 143(3)

…ard cannot be said to flow directly from the industrial undertaking itself. [Para 6] 4.3.2 The Hon‟ble Madras High Court in above mentioned case of Pandian Chemicals Limited (which is confirmed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court discussed as above ) had held as under (233 ITR 497 MAD) “A study of various case laws clearly indicates that a restricted meaning is given when the Legislature uses the expression, "derived from" in section 80HH. Though the assessee had necessarily to make the deposit with the Electricity Board for running the industry and the power supply would not be made without the deposit in favour of the El…

ASST CIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK GENERICS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5515/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.5515/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम/ The Acit, M/S. Glenmark Generics Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, B/2, Mahalaxmi Chambers, Vs. Centre-1, 29Th Floor, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, World Trade Centre, Mumbai -400 026 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaccg 9820D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Ms. Bharti M. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :01.02.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :05 .02.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N. Prasad, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti M. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 80Section 80I

…ting to the sale of scrap was already debited to the P & L a/c of the unit. The A.O also did not grant deduction u/s 80-IB in respect of miscellaneous income amounting to Rs. 56,32,480/- relying on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals (233 ITR 497) and Sterling Foods Ltd. (236 AITR 529). On appeal, the CIT(A) has confirmed the view taken by the A.O on this issue. At the very outset, the Learned Counsel for the assessee has mentioned that the said issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of Madras High Court judgment in the case of M/s Fenner India Ltd (241 ITR 803) for the…

ADDL CIT 8(3), MUMBAI vs. SULHUR MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 8846/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Sh. K.S. Chokshi & Ms. M.R. Patel - ARsFor Respondent: Sh. Aarsi Prasad-DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40

…lowed.After considering the submission of the assessee, the AO held that the interest receipts were not derived from exports.He referred to the cases of Cambay Electrical Supply Industrial Company.Ltd. (113 ITR 84), Sterling Foods and Pandiyan Chemicals Ltd. (233 ITR 497),that the interest income could at best be said to have been attributable to the export,that same was not derived from the business of the assessee, that gross interest receipts were to be disallowed for calculating the deduction u/s. 10B of the Act.For the similar reasons incomes credited under the head ‘CSD refund receipt- (Rs.9.31lacs),handlin…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (233 ITR 497) — Cited in 22 Judgments | BharatTax