CIT v. Sahney Steel & Press Works

177 ITR 354Reported decision1989#10276 most cited

What is CIT v. Sahney Steel & Press Works authority for?

An undertaking engaged in generating power for captive consumption does not require separate permission from the Central/State Government or Local Authority to carry on eligible business under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, unless it falls under the specific category of infrastructure facilities as defined in Section 80IA(4)(i).

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Also referred to as

CIT v Sahney Steel & Press Works · 177 ITR 354 · Section 80IA · captive consumption · eligible business · infrastructure facility · approval · government permission

Judgments citing CIT v. Sahney Steel & Press Works

Saf Yeast Co. P.Ltd., Mumba vs. ACIT CC-7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1800/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Tax Cc-7(1), Vs. 419, Swastik Chambers, Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, Chembur, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Hemant Chimanlal Leuwa, DR
Section 80I

…n. In taking this view, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT regarding exemption under section 15C of the 1922 Act and the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs Sahney Steel & Press Works (1989) 177 ITR 354. 38. Regarding AO’s contention that no separate permission was obtained from Central /State Government/Local Authority for carrying on eligible business, it was argued that as per the provisions of Section 80IA of the Act, there is a mandatory requirement for obtaining approval of Central Government/ Statutory Authority only for those undertaking…

Dy CIT - CC- 7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Saf Yeast Co.Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1714/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Tax Cc-7(1), Vs. 419, Swastik Chambers, Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, Chembur, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Hemant Chimanlal Leuwa, DR
Section 80I

…n. In taking this view, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT regarding exemption under section 15C of the 1922 Act and the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs Sahney Steel & Press Works (1989) 177 ITR 354. 38. Regarding AO’s contention that no separate permission was obtained from Central /State Government/Local Authority for carrying on eligible business, it was argued that as per the provisions of Section 80IA of the Act, there is a mandatory requirement for obtaining approval of Central Government/ Statutory Authority only for those undertaking…

Saf Yeast Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 1875/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 80I

…n. In taking this view, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT regarding exemption under section 15C of the 1922 Act and the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs Sahney Steel & Press Works (1989) 177 ITR 354. 23. The issue relating to segmental reporting has been discussed in paragraph 39 of the order. Since the assessee has used the steam power and cooling power for captive consumption, it has been held that there is no requirement of disclosing segmental results. Regarding the question as to whether separate books of accounts are required to be mai…

DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai vs. Saf Yeast Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1780/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…n. In taking this view, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT regarding exemption under section 15C of the 1922 Act and the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs Sahney Steel & Press Works (1989) 177 ITR 354. 38. Regarding AO’s contention that no separate permission was obtained from Central /State Government/Local Authority for carrying on eligible business, it was argued that as per the provisions of Section 80IA of the Act, there is a mandatory requirement for obtaining approval of Central Government/ Statutory Authority only for those undertaking…

DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai vs. Saf Yeast Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1778/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…n. In taking this view, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT regarding exemption under section 15C of the 1922 Act and the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs Sahney Steel & Press Works (1989) 177 ITR 354. 38. Regarding AO’s contention that no separate permission was obtained from Central /State Government/Local Authority for carrying on eligible business, it was argued that as per the provisions of Section 80IA of the Act, there is a mandatory requirement for obtaining approval of Central Government/ Statutory Authority only for those undertaking…

DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai vs. Saf Yeast Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1777/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…n. In taking this view, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT regarding exemption under section 15C of the 1922 Act and the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs Sahney Steel & Press Works (1989) 177 ITR 354. 38. Regarding AO’s contention that no separate permission was obtained from Central /State Government/Local Authority for carrying on eligible business, it was argued that as per the provisions of Section 80IA of the Act, there is a mandatory requirement for obtaining approval of Central Government/ Statutory Authority only for those undertaking…

Saf Yeast Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1637/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…n. In taking this view, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT regarding exemption under section 15C of the 1922 Act and the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs Sahney Steel & Press Works (1989) 177 ITR 354. 38. Regarding AO’s contention that no separate permission was obtained from Central /State Government/Local Authority for carrying on eligible business, it was argued that as per the provisions of Section 80IA of the Act, there is a mandatory requirement for obtaining approval of Central Government/ Statutory Authority only for those undertaking…

Saf Yeast Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1636/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…n. In taking this view, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT regarding exemption under section 15C of the 1922 Act and the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs Sahney Steel & Press Works (1989) 177 ITR 354. 38. Regarding AO’s contention that no separate permission was obtained from Central /State Government/Local Authority for carrying on eligible business, it was argued that as per the provisions of Section 80IA of the Act, there is a mandatory requirement for obtaining approval of Central Government/ Statutory Authority only for those undertaking…

Saf Yeast Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1635/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…n. In taking this view, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT regarding exemption under section 15C of the 1922 Act and the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs Sahney Steel & Press Works (1989) 177 ITR 354. 38. Regarding AO’s contention that no separate permission was obtained from Central /State Government/Local Authority for carrying on eligible business, it was argued that as per the provisions of Section 80IA of the Act, there is a mandatory requirement for obtaining approval of Central Government/ Statutory Authority only for those undertaking…

Saf Yeast Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1634/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…n. In taking this view, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT regarding exemption under section 15C of the 1922 Act and the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs Sahney Steel & Press Works (1989) 177 ITR 354. 38. Regarding AO’s contention that no separate permission was obtained from Central /State Government/Local Authority for carrying on eligible business, it was argued that as per the provisions of Section 80IA of the Act, there is a mandatory requirement for obtaining approval of Central Government/ Statutory Authority only for those undertaking…

CIT v. Sahney Steel & Press Works (177 ITR 354) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax