CIT v. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd.

91 ITR 170High Court1973#2444 most cited

What is CIT v. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. authority for?

Business is considered set up when initial and essential activities for its establishment, such as obtaining necessary licenses, leases, and beginning raw material extraction, commence, even before the main manufacturing plant is fully installed or production has started.

48

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. · 91 ITR 170 · setting up of business · commencement of business · pre-commencement expenses · business start date · initial business activities · eligibility for deductions · Gujarat High Court · business set up definition

Also reported as

172 CTR 119

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 1882Section 1908Section 2006

Issues it is cited on

previous yeartransfercompanysection 143(3)indiabusinessinterestdocument

Judgments citing CIT v. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd.

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PANVEL vs. EPYGEN BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2719/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Satya Prakash Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nasavarak Jore,atj, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35(1)(iv)

…capital expenditure in the instant year, incurred in previous three years, has not been established in the case of assessee. Ld.AO also observed that the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sauashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 170 (Guj.-HC) is not applicable on the facts of the case because the facts dealt with are different from that of the assessee. Ld.AO concluded the assessment disallowing claim u/s. 35(1)(iv) of the Act at ₹3,72,88,916/- and assessed the business loss at ₹1,53,09,375/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and succeeded as Ld.CI…

VIATON ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1280/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(3)

…and machinery and started installing the electricity plants and, therefore, such an expense should have been allowed. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Hughes Escort Communication 311 ITR 253 and Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. 91 ITR 170. 7. Learned CIT(A) elaborately considered the submissions on all these aspects. He considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Bokaro Steel Ltd., (supra), Bongaigaon Refinery and Petro Chemicals Ltd., 251 ITR 329, Karnal Co-Operative Sugar Mil…

HONDA ACCESS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, NOIDA

ITA 3368/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)

…ring, several activities in order to bring or produce finished products have to be undertaken, but business commences when the first of such activities is taken. ” 11.1 At the same time in the case of CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd.[1973] 91 ITR 170, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court had taken into consideration the argument of Revenue, based on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of wealth Tax V. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. [1967]63ITR478, that in the absence of plant and machinery being installed the business cannot be said to be set up had observed as follows :- “8. The…

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VODAFONE INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 5598/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 5598/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykarbhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. M/S. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Vodafone Essar Ltd.) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Pan: Aaach-5332-B आअसं. 5078/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2005-06) M/S. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Vodafone Essar Ltd.) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykarbhavan, M.K.Road, ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 Revenue By : S/Shrianand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari Assessee By :S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Ketanved & Ms. Soumya Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, KetanVed and Ms. Soumya SinghFor Respondent: S/ShriAnand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari
Section 114Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…elevant to Assessment Year 1995-96. The ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the following decisions to support his argument: (i) CIT vs. ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. 301 ITR 368 (Delhi); (ii) CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Inds. Ltd., 91 ITR 170 (Guj); (iii) CIT vs. E Funds International India, 162 Taxaman 1 (Delhi); and (iv) Jcdecaux Advertising India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 149 (Del-Trib.) 4.8 The ld.Departmental Representative without prejudice to his primary submissions made alternate submission, that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 80IA(2) of the Act. T…

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 5078/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 5598/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykarbhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. M/S. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Vodafone Essar Ltd.) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Pan: Aaach-5332-B आअसं. 5078/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2005-06) M/S. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Vodafone Essar Ltd.) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykarbhavan, M.K.Road, ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 Revenue By : S/Shrianand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari Assessee By :S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Ketanved & Ms. Soumya Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, KetanVed and Ms. Soumya SinghFor Respondent: S/ShriAnand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari
Section 114Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…elevant to Assessment Year 1995-96. The ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the following decisions to support his argument: (i) CIT vs. ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. 301 ITR 368 (Delhi); (ii) CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Inds. Ltd., 91 ITR 170 (Guj); (iii) CIT vs. E Funds International India, 162 Taxaman 1 (Delhi); and (iv) Jcdecaux Advertising India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 149 (Del-Trib.) 4.8 The ld.Departmental Representative without prejudice to his primary submissions made alternate submission, that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 80IA(2) of the Act. T…

DCIT CIR 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. KARJAT GOLF CLUB P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 638/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.638/Mum/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(3)(2), Vs. Karjat Golf Club P. Ltd., Mumbai. Tower, 1502 B One India Bulls Centre, 841 Jupier Mills, Off Senapati Bpat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 Pan : Aadck0915A Appellant Respondent C.O. No.236/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.638/Mum/2016) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Karjat Golf Club P. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-6(3)(2), Tower, 1502 B One India Mumbai. Bulls Centre, 841 Jupier Mills, Off Senapati Bpat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 Pan : Aadck0915A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Assessee By : Shri Vilesh Dalya Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Vilesh DalyaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.638/MUM/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT, Circle-6(3)(2), Vs. Karjat Golf Club P. Ltd., Mumbai. Tower, 1502 B One India Bulls Centre, 841 Jupier Mills, Off Senapati Bpat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 PAN : AADCK0915A Appellant Respondent C.O. No.236/MUM/2017 (Arising out of ITA No.638/MUM/2016) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Karjat Golf Club P. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(3)(2), Tower, 1502 B One India Mumbai. Bu…

VATIKA HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3987/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 147Section 32

…g decisions: 1. CIT vs. Dhoomketu Builders & Developments Pvt. Ltd., 216 Taxman 76 (Del.) 2. Western Vegetable Products Ltd. Vs. CIT, 26 ITR 151 (Bom.) 3. Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT, 102 ITR 25 (Guj.) 4. Saurashtra Cement and Chemicals Ltd. 91 ITR 170 (SC) 5. CIT Vs. L.G. Electronics (I) Ltd. 282 ITR 545 (Del.) 6. CIT Vs. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd., 311 ITR 253 (Del.) 7. Carefour WC & C India P. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT [2014] 368 ITR 692 (Delhi); 8. Omniglobe Information Tech India (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2014] 369 ITR 1 (Delhi); 9. Indian Railway Stations Development Corporations Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT…

SURAT ROUGH DIAMOND SOURCING (INDIA) LIMITED,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2571/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Surat Rough Diamond Sourcing The Income Tax Officer, (India) Limited, Ward-4(3), Surat. Vs C-401/403, Diamond World, Mini Bazar, Varachha Road, Surat – 395006. Pan: Aaocs 9292 D Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 144ASection 234ASection 254(1)Section 271

…ia) Limited., Surat. construction work of canal project was still under progress. The Hon’ble High Court while referring its earlier decision in CIT Vs Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd., [1973] 90 ITR 318, (Guj); and in CIT Vs Saurashtra Cement and Chemicals Industry [91 ITR 170 (Guj)] held that when business can be said to have been setup, the Court observed that when each one of the activities essential and vital and combined together constitute business of the assessee and things being a continuous process, all activities which go to make a business need not be started simultaneously of entire term business without pro…

ACIT 3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. EXPERIAN CREDIT INFORMATION CO. P.LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 805/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

…ios of Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. C/T[1954] 26 ITR 151 (Bom.) (para 10), CITv. 9 M/s. Experian Credit Information Company Pvt. Ltd. Ralliwolf Ltd. [1980J 121 ITR 262 (Bom.) (para 10), CIT Vs. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 170 (Guj.) (para 10) and DHL Express (I) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt CIT (2009) 124 TTJ 108 (Mum.) (para 10.1). 5.2.15 Questions such as lack of 3rd party/vendor certification etc., raised by the Assessing Officer are not relevant in deciding the issue. In the instant case, relying on decisions of jurisdictional courts and considering the facts and circumstanc…

M/S. RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 288/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Amrish Bedi (CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…as set-up in the previous year though the appellant had purchased two vehicles and also taken office on hire. Assessee has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Sarrashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 91 ITR 170 (Guj-HC). It is seen that in this case mining lease as well as license to establish a cement manufacturing plant was available, quarrying operations for extracting limestone from the leased area had started and installation of plant and machinery was completed in June, 1960 and manufacturing itself 11 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Developme…

M/S CROWN HOME ENGINEERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1572/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Bharat.L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R.Premi, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 28Section 29Section 3

…9/De1/2010 Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. [1954]-Hon. Bombay High Court-26 ITR 151 3 ESPN Software India (P.) Ltd [2009]-Hon. Delhi High Court- 184 TAXMAN 452 4 Page 3 of 5 Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. [1973R-ion. Gujarat High Court- 5 91 ITR 170 Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. [2013]-Hon. Delhi Court-34 6 taxmann.com 18 UE Development India (P.) Ltd. [2013]-Hon. Bangalore ITAT- 7 35taxmann.com 607 6. We have heard the parties and perused the record. In our opinion, there is merit in the plea of assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Dhoomketu Builders & D…

JINDAL REALITY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1651/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.5057/Del/2010 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2007-08 Jindal Reality Pvt.Ltd. Flat No.1104, 11Th Floor, Hemkunt Chamber, 89Th Nehru Place, New Delhi. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaccd2575L Vs The Dcit, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-4(1), New Delhi-110002. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Jain, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sh. J.K.Mishra, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. J.K.Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…aras 12 to 14 and relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. vs CIT 26 ITR 151 (Bom.); Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. 91 ITR 170 (Guj.) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT 368 ITR 680 (Del.) and in CIT vs Arcane Developers (P) Ltd. 368 ITR 627 (Del.), has held as under:- “19. Applying the above said proposition to the facts of the present case, we hold that in the case of the assessee where substantial activit…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JINDAL REALTY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4340/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.5057/Del/2010 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2007-08 Jindal Reality Pvt.Ltd. Flat No.1104, 11Th Floor, Hemkunt Chamber, 89Th Nehru Place, New Delhi. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaccd2575L Vs The Dcit, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-4(1), New Delhi-110002. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Jain, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sh. J.K.Mishra, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. J.K.Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…aras 12 to 14 and relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. vs CIT 26 ITR 151 (Bom.); Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. 91 ITR 170 (Guj.) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT 368 ITR 680 (Del.) and in CIT vs Arcane Developers (P) Ltd. 368 ITR 627 (Del.), has held as under:- “19. Applying the above said proposition to the facts of the present case, we hold that in the case of the assessee where substantial activit…

JINDAL REALITY PVT. LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5057/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.5057/Del/2010 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2007-08 Jindal Reality Pvt.Ltd. Flat No.1104, 11Th Floor, Hemkunt Chamber, 89Th Nehru Place, New Delhi. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaccd2575L Vs The Dcit, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-4(1), New Delhi-110002. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Jain, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sh. J.K.Mishra, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. J.K.Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…aras 12 to 14 and relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. vs CIT 26 ITR 151 (Bom.); Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. 91 ITR 170 (Guj.) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT 368 ITR 680 (Del.) and in CIT vs Arcane Developers (P) Ltd. 368 ITR 627 (Del.), has held as under:- “19. Applying the above said proposition to the facts of the present case, we hold that in the case of the assessee where substantial activit…

AMRUTHA POWER PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1944/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2014-15 Amrutha Power Projects Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaica 5884 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Sri S. Murali Mohan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2020

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri S. Murali Mohan, DR
Section 143(3)

…fter the setting-up of the business and before the commencement of the business, all expenses during the interregnum, would be permissible deductions U/s. 37(1) of the Act”. Further, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saurashtra Cements reported in 91 ITR 170 it was held that “the term business connotes a continuous course of activities. All the activities, which go to make up the business, need not be started simultaneously in order that the business may commence. The business would commence, when the activity which is first in point of time and which must necessarily precede all other activities is…

JINDAL REALITY PVT. LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1408/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri O.P.Kantआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1408/Del/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year-2006-07

For Respondent: Sh. J. Mishra, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)

…nterval between the setting up of the business and the commencement of the business and all expenses incurred during that interval would be permissible deductions. 16. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. 91 ITR 170(Guj.) held that “business” connotes a continuous course of activities. All the activities which go to make up 12 the business need not be started simultaneously in order that the business may commence. The business would commence when the activity which is first in point of time and which must necessarily precede all other activities. is started…

BTW-ATLANTA TRANSFORMERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,BHARUCH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1642/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

…Products Limited v. CIT (1954) 26ITR151 (Bombay HC) - CIT vs. Samsung India Electronics Limited (2013) 356 ITR 354 (Delhi HC) - CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications (2007) 165 Taxman 3i8(Delhi HC) - CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 170 (Gujarat HC) The ld. counsel has submitted that assessee company has obtained necessary regulatory registration and approval required for commencement of its business and also set up its administrative office and recruited employees for the purposes of business. The assesee company has also incurred expenses of foreign travel of its employees for…

M/S SAMBHAV INSTITUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1760/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1758 to 1760/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2010-11 M/s. Sambhav Institutions (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax # 306, 3rd Floor, Montreal Manor Officer, Shopping Street, Serpentine Vs. Ward – 12 (2), Road, Kumara Park (West), Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 020. PAN: AAKCS3106L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 09.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.201…

M/S SAMBHAV INSTITUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1759/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1758 to 1760/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2010-11 M/s. Sambhav Institutions (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax # 306, 3rd Floor, Montreal Manor Officer, Shopping Street, Serpentine Vs. Ward – 12 (2), Road, Kumara Park (West), Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 020. PAN: AAKCS3106L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 09.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.201…

M/S SAMBHAV INSTITUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1758/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1758 to 1760/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2010-11 M/s. Sambhav Institutions (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax # 306, 3rd Floor, Montreal Manor Officer, Shopping Street, Serpentine Vs. Ward – 12 (2), Road, Kumara Park (West), Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 020. PAN: AAKCS3106L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 09.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.201…

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3