CIT v. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd.

91 ITR 170High Court1973#2414 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 366,339 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.

DCIT -1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Lockheed Martinaerostructures Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result , appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2667/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin,DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…are preparatory in nature to the attainment of main activities, it can be considered that the business was set up. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd.(1972) 91 ITR 170,(Guj. HC) . The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ralliwolf Limited (1978) 121 ITR 262(Bom. HC). It was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that the assessee received orders from Lockheed Martin Aeronautics , USA for manufacturing tools indigenously for the assembly unit being set up…

DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Karvy Global Services Limited, Hyderabad

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 745/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Krishna, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Geetender Mann, DR
Section 147Section 3

…of CIT Vs. Sponge Iron India Ltd., [201 ITR 770] (AP) and also on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Western India Vegetable Products Ltd., Vs. CIT [26 ITR 151] and CIT Vs. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd., [91 ITR 170] (Gujarat). It also relied on various other case law as extracted by the CIT(A) in his order. 4. After considering the above, Ld.CIT(A) allowed the contentions of assessee by stating as under: “6. I have considered the assessment order, grounds of appeal and the AR submissions in this regard. The only issue involved in this appeal is with regard…

DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Karvy Global Services Limited, Hyderabad

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1659/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Krishna, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Geetender Mann, DR
Section 147Section 3

…of CIT Vs. Sponge Iron India Ltd., [201 ITR 770] (AP) and also on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Western India Vegetable Products Ltd., Vs. CIT [26 ITR 151] and CIT Vs. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd., [91 ITR 170] (Gujarat). It also relied on various other case law as extracted by the CIT(A) in his order. 4. After considering the above, Ld.CIT(A) allowed the contentions of assessee by stating as under: “6. I have considered the assessment order, grounds of appeal and the AR submissions in this regard. The only issue involved in this appeal is with regard…

ITO, Ward - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Amba High-Rise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2291/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Amba High-Rise Pvt. Ward-1(1), P-7, Ltd., 68/2, Harish Chowringhee Square, Mukherjee Road, 7Th Floor, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-25 [Pan No.Aafca 7094 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Kolkata Dated 15.09.2010. Assessment Was Framed By Ito Ward-1(1), Kolkata U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 31.12.2009 For Assessment Year 2007-08 By Taking The Following Effective Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Interest Received On Bank Deposits To The Extent Of Rs.62,57,436/- As Income From Other Sources. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Capital Expenditure Claimed Under The Head Loan Syndication Charges Of Rs.1,26,27,000/- 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Interest Expenses Of Rs.86,90,220/- On Account Of Term Loan From Central Bank Of India Which Was Not

Section 144Section 194L

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2007-08 Income Tax Officer, V/s. M/s Amba High-Rise Pvt. Ward-1(1), P-7, Ltd., 68/2, Harish Chowringhee Square, Mukherjee Road, 7th Floor, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-25 [PAN No.AAFCA 7094 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S.S. Gupta, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 27-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pr…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Valmark Developers Pvt. Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2648/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri A.K Garodiaita Nos.2648 To 2653/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year – 2009-10 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CITFor Respondent: Shri V Srinivasn, Advocate

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH ‘A’ BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2648 to 2653/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year – 2009-10 to 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/s Valmark Developers Pvt. Ltd., No.113/1, ‘The Residency’, 10th Floor, Residency Road, Bengaluru. . Respondent PAN – AACCV4484G. Appellant by : Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT Respondent by : Shri V Srinivasn, Advocate Date of Hearing : 4-04-2018 Date of Pronouncement : 11-04-2018 O R D E R PER BENCH : All these appeals…

M/S. Tera Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, we allow ground No

ITA 1657/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishitera Estates Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, S-395, Greater Kailash, Parti-Ii, Range-16, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aabct5729R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 24

…d that the same would equally apply whether a return of assessment year is accepted u/s 143(1) or is subject to scrutiny u/s 143(3). 7. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of High Court of Gujarat in CIT Vs. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industrial Ltd. 91 ITR 170 and in Prem Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 108 ITR 654 to submit that in facts of the case the business of the appellant company had commenced and therefore both the Ld. A.O. and CIT (A) have erred in holding that since the business had not commenced or is not in existence therefore the necessary expenses incurred for the business or not allowable. 8…

Urdbanedge Hotels & Holdings P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1536/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R

…, interest on term loan and financial consultancy charges incurred towards the said project could be allowed as revenue expenditure — Held, no,, 10 3.9 Further, Ld.CIT(A) observed that in the case of CIT Vs Saurashtra Cement& Chemical Industries Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 170 (Gujarat) and the aforesaid decision is not applicable to facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case. In the said decision, the assessee had in fact commenced its business of extraction of limestone whereas in the appellant’s case, it has not commenced its business. In view of above remarks and decisions relied on, the AO’s disallowance is…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 419/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…ounting to ₹ 6,78,13,832/- was shown as “other income” in the financials but the same was treated as capital receipt for tax purposes relying on the decision rendered in CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. [2002], 172 CTR 119(Guj) 11/[2002] 253 ITR 373(Guj.), wherein it was held that liquidated damages received by the assessee for delay in supply of machinery was a capital receipt and was not a receipt in the course of profit-making process, the assessee company, in the computation statement, treating the receipt as capital in nature, claimed deduction of the amount. It may be pertinent to no…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 418/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…ounting to ₹ 6,78,13,832/- was shown as “other income” in the financials but the same was treated as capital receipt for tax purposes relying on the decision rendered in CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. [2002], 172 CTR 119(Guj) 11/[2002] 253 ITR 373(Guj.), wherein it was held that liquidated damages received by the assessee for delay in supply of machinery was a capital receipt and was not a receipt in the course of profit-making process, the assessee company, in the computation statement, treating the receipt as capital in nature, claimed deduction of the amount. It may be pertinent to no…

Trimex Sands Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 384/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…ounting to ₹ 6,78,13,832/- was shown as “other income” in the financials but the same was treated as capital receipt for tax purposes relying on the decision rendered in CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. [2002], 172 CTR 119(Guj) 11/[2002] 253 ITR 373(Guj.), wherein it was held that liquidated damages received by the assessee for delay in supply of machinery was a capital receipt and was not a receipt in the course of profit-making process, the assessee company, in the computation statement, treating the receipt as capital in nature, claimed deduction of the amount. It may be pertinent to no…

Trimex Sands Private Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 383/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…ounting to ₹ 6,78,13,832/- was shown as “other income” in the financials but the same was treated as capital receipt for tax purposes relying on the decision rendered in CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. [2002], 172 CTR 119(Guj) 11/[2002] 253 ITR 373(Guj.), wherein it was held that liquidated damages received by the assessee for delay in supply of machinery was a capital receipt and was not a receipt in the course of profit-making process, the assessee company, in the computation statement, treating the receipt as capital in nature, claimed deduction of the amount. It may be pertinent to no…

A.C.I.T. Circle 6(1), Mumbai vs. Inx Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 7216/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sandeep Gosainacit, Circle 6(1), फनाभ/ M/S. Inx Media Pvt Ltd., R.No.506, 5 Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Inx House, Apsara Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Complex, Dr. Dadasaheb C Mumbai – 20. Bhadmarkar Marg, Grand Road (E), Mumbai – 400 007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabc15594D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. M/S. Inx Media Pvt Ltd., फनाभ/ Acit, Circle 6(1), 3Rd Floor, Inx House, Apsara R.No.506, 5 Th Floor, Vs. Complex, Dr. Dadasaheb C Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bhadmarkar Marg, Grand Road Mumbai – 20. (E), Mumbai – 400 007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabc15594D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija, CIT-DR
Section 32Section 68

…led legal proposition of law that the „set up‟ of business is done when the culmination of all the necessary operations are done. Ld. DR also relied on the judgment in the case of Western India Veg. Products Ltd. and also Saurashtra Cement & Chem. Industries (91 ITR 170) (Guj H.C). These decisions suggest that the set up is complete when all necessary operations in place and the commencement of business started when the essential business activity i.e. purchase/sale/manufacturing activity started. Per contra, Ld. AR relied on the written submissions dated 11.01.2016 (para 47-55). In the said submissions, it is t…

Globex Energia P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1109/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Globex Energia P. Ltd. Acit 6(3) 4Th Floor, Sadhna House, 570 Mumbai- बनाम/ Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Vs. Behind Mahindra Towr, S. Worli Mumbai-400018 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aadcg1161C Appellant By Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mis. Jasmin Amalsadvala (Ar) Revenue By Shri Prakash Mane (Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2016 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,G,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी अ"मत शु"ला, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Globex Energia P. Ltd. ACIT 6(3) 4th Floor, Sadhna House, 570 Mumbai- बनाम/ Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Vs. Behind Mahindra Towr, S. Worli Mumbai-400018 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AADCG1161C Appellant by Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mis. Jasmin Amalsadvala (AR) Revenue by Shri Prakash Mane (DR) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing: 09/11/2016…

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2364/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. ShivramFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…Ralliwolf Ltd. (1980) 121 ITR 262 (Bom.) and Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 138 ITD 203 (Ahd.) (SB) and Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 151 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 170 (Guj.) 16. On the other hand learned representative of the department has strongly relied upon the finding of the CIT(A) in question. It is not in dispute that the assessee company was incorporated on 29.12.1955 and in this regard the certification of incorporation is on record lies at page 69 of the paper book. The Memorandum of Understanding (M…

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2363/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. ShivramFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…Ralliwolf Ltd. (1980) 121 ITR 262 (Bom.) and Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 138 ITD 203 (Ahd.) (SB) and Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 151 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 170 (Guj.) 16. On the other hand learned representative of the department has strongly relied upon the finding of the CIT(A) in question. It is not in dispute that the assessee company was incorporated on 29.12.1955 and in this regard the certification of incorporation is on record lies at page 69 of the paper book. The Memorandum of Understanding (M…

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cen RG VIII, Mumbai

ITA 1295/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. ShivramFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…Ralliwolf Ltd. (1980) 121 ITR 262 (Bom.) and Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 138 ITD 203 (Ahd.) (SB) and Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 151 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 170 (Guj.) 16. On the other hand learned representative of the department has strongly relied upon the finding of the CIT(A) in question. It is not in dispute that the assessee company was incorporated on 29.12.1955 and in this regard the certification of incorporation is on record lies at page 69 of the paper book. The Memorandum of Understanding (M…

Asian Paints Ltd ( Erstwhile Technical Instrument Manufacturers( India) Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1), Mumbai

ITA 3825/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. ShivramFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…Ralliwolf Ltd. (1980) 121 ITR 262 (Bom.) and Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 138 ITD 203 (Ahd.) (SB) and Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 151 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 170 (Guj.) 16. On the other hand learned representative of the department has strongly relied upon the finding of the CIT(A) in question. It is not in dispute that the assessee company was incorporated on 29.12.1955 and in this regard the certification of incorporation is on record lies at page 69 of the paper book. The Memorandum of Understanding (M…

DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Gitanjali Infratech Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in favour of the AO,in part

ITA 4729/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Vispute-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 57

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ “ “ “ जी जी जी” खंडपीठ जी Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, "याियक राम लाल नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/4729/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT, CC-2 M/s. Gitanjali Infratech Ltd. Room No.904, Pratishtha Bhavan, 801-802, Prasad Cha…

Aig Capital India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 6(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2940/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 250

…necessary. In this regard, we can also take further guidance from following judgements:- Western India Vegetable Products Ltd v CIT(A) (26 ITR 151)(BOM) CIT Bombay v Ralliwolf ltd (121 ITR 262) (BOM) CIT(A) V Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Limited (91 ITR 170)(Guj) 10.1. We shall also like to make reference to the judgment of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DHL Express (I) Ltd vs ACIT 154 TTJ 108 (Mum) wherein it was held that setting up of business is distinct from commencement of business. The business can be ‘set-up’ when the company is ready to discharge the function for which it i…

DCIT- CC-44, Mumbai vs. Jik Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 4922/MUM/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Motwani
Section 143(3)

…ontract is considered as capital receipt, and held that amount received by the assessee towards compensation for sterilization of the profit earning source , not in the ordinary course of their business is considered as capital receipt. Industries Ltd. (2002) 253 ITR 373 (Guj.) observed that the liquidated damages represents the source of income , which is amount connected with the profit making apparatus rather than a receipt in the course of profit earning process and thus, liquidated damages were not a revenue receipt .The other decisions in the matter of S. Zoraster & Co., (2010) 322 ITR 35(Raj.) reiterated t…