CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd.

221 ITR 155High Court1996#2194 most cited

What is CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. authority for?

Interest earned by a company on bank deposits can be assessed under the head 'Other Sources', even if the borrowings leading to such deposits are related to its business operations.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. · 156 ITR 542 · Madras High Court · interest income · other sources · business income · short-term deposits · commencement of production

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

public servantrevision u/s 263inadequate enquirymalabar industriallack of enquiryerroneous and prejudicialchange of opinioncomplete scrutinylimited scrutinyagricultural incomesection 119section 263

Judgments citing CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Wind Power Sankonahatti Athni Private Limied, Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 34/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 56

…rejected the claim of the assessee. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal found that there were conflicting judgments of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. (1985) 156 ITR 542 and A.P. High Court in CIT vs. Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 63. Accordingly a reference was made to the Apex Court. The Apex Court after examining the facts of the case and the judgment of the Madras High Court in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. (supra) and Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. (supra) confirmed the judgment…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Wind Energy Halagali Benchi Private Limied, Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 33/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 56

…rejected the claim of the assessee. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal found that there were conflicting judgments of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. (1985) 156 ITR 542 and A.P. High Court in CIT vs. Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 63. Accordingly a reference was made to the Apex Court. The Apex Court after examining the facts of the case and the judgment of the Madras High Court in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. (supra) and Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. (supra) confirmed the judgment…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. L & T Metro Rail (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1412/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. L & T Metro Rail Circle-16(1), (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8521 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah Revenue By: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2022 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri Ashik ShahFor Respondent: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 56

…rejected the claim of the assessee. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal found that there were conflicting judgments of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. (1985) 156 ITR 542 and A.P. High Court in CIT vs. Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 63. Accordingly a reference was made to the Apex Court. The Apex Court after examining the facts of the case and the judgment of the Madras High Court in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. (supra) and Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. (supra) confirmed the judgment…

Ashutosh Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 44ASection 54E

…’ble courts. Kindly refer direct decisions in case of Smt. Leela Choudhary v/s PR. CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.) also refer, Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) Also refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) Same view has been expressed in the case of Kamal Kumar Gupta v/s Pr. CIT 142 TTJ 9(Jp) wherein it has been held that “assessee was asked by the AO to file the details of trade creditors which are shown in the name of agriculturalist. In the reply, assessee filed written submission enclosing the list of creditors. Thus, the AO made the inq…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 37/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…’ble courts. Kindly refer direct decisions in case of Smt. Leela Choudhary v/s PR. CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.) also refer, Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) Also refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) Same view has been expressed in the case of Kamal Kumar Gupta v/s Pr. CIT 142 TTJ 9(Jp) wherein it has been held that “assessee was asked by the AO to file the details of trade creditors which are shown in the name of agriculturalist. In the reply, assessee filed written submission enclosing the list of creditors. Thus, the AO made the in…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palasana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…’ble courts. Kindly refer direct decisions in case of Smt. Leela Choudhary v/s PR. CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.) also refer, Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) Also refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) Same view has been expressed in the case of Kamal Kumar Gupta v/s Pr. CIT 142 TTJ 9(Jp) wherein it has been held that “assessee was asked by the AO to file the details of trade creditors which are shown in the name of agriculturalist. In the reply, assessee filed written submission enclosing the list of creditors. Thus, the AO made the in…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palsana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 35/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…’ble courts. Kindly refer direct decisions in case of Smt. Leela Choudhary v/s PR. CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.) also refer, Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) Also refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) Same view has been expressed in the case of Kamal Kumar Gupta v/s Pr. CIT 142 TTJ 9(Jp) wherein it has been held that “assessee was asked by the AO to file the details of trade creditors which are shown in the name of agriculturalist. In the reply, assessee filed written submission enclosing the list of creditors. Thus, the AO made the in…

Satyam Textile Park, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 91/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.90 & 91/SRT/2021 (AY 2016-17 & 2017-18) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Satyam Textile Park, The Principal Block No.430,Moje Hathoda, Commissioner of Income Vs TA-Magrol, Surat – 394380. Tax (Central), Surat. PAN: ACXFS 1576 L Assessee / appellant Revenue /respondent Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 25.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMB…

Satyam Textile Park, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 90/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.90 & 91/SRT/2021 (AY 2016-17 & 2017-18) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Satyam Textile Park, The Principal Block No.430,Moje Hathoda, Commissioner of Income Vs TA-Magrol, Surat – 394380. Tax (Central), Surat. PAN: ACXFS 1576 L Assessee / appellant Revenue /respondent Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 25.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMB…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 94/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 93/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

M/S. Ganpati Global Private Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward1(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 302/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

…followed. In the case of CIT v. Electrochem Orissa Ltd. [1995] 211 ITR 552, the Orissa High Court preferred the view expressed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to the view expressed by the Madras High Court in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd.'s case [1985] 156 ITR 542 on the ground that the Madras case was based on a finding of fact that there was no direct connection between the interest paid and the interest received. In our view, it will not be right to read the judgment in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd.'s case [1985] 156 ITR 542 (Mad) in that way. The court's finding in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd.s…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(2), Hyderabad vs. Elgen (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 244/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Elgen (India) Pvt Ltd., Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 8520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri M. Poorna Chander Rao Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri M. Poorna Chander RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)

…nt. 11. Shri Ganesan very fairly took upon himself to explain two other High Court decisions; one from Madras and another from Karnataka, which could be read against the assessee. The Madras High Court (decision is CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. [1985] 156 ITR 542 and the Karnataka High Court decision is CIT v. Cap Steel Ltd. [1986] 162 ITR 533. In regard to the Madras High Court's decision Shri Ganesan's submission was that apparently it may be against the assessee but since It had proceeded on a concession, no law was laid down. For this proposition the Supreme Court's decision in Lakshmi Shankar Srivast…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ns of section 263 -were not applicable to the instant case and, therefore, the Commissioner urns not justified in setting aside the assessment order." 39 M/s. Vajresh Consultants Ltd. (Earlier known as Essar Capital Ltd.) (v) Rayon Silk Mills vs. CIT [1.9961 221 ITR 155 (Gui.) "Section 263, read with section 2(47), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue - Assessment year 1974-75 - Whether it is essential condition for exercise of power under section 263 that Commissioner must find that error which is found in order of ITO is prejudicial to interests of revenue and…

M/S. Rohan Developers, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -2, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 459/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.459/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Rohan Developers, 1, Modibaug Commercial Building, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivajinagar, Pune-411016. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaffr5298C बनाम / V/S. Pr. Cit-2, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2020 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Pune Dated 30.03.2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm & Is Engaged In The Business Of Builders & Land Developers. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Was Filed On 27.09.2015 Through Electronic Mode Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.3,32,39,320/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 143(3)Section 26Section 263

…to the interests of the Revenue. The reliance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2001] 250 ITR 747 (Gauhati); (ii) CIT vs. Sakthi Charities, 244 ITR 226; and, (iii) Rayon Silk Mills vs. CIT, 221 ITR 155. 8. In the present case on mere perusal of the impugned order, we find that there is no material or reference to any material on record suggesting that the provision for expenses of Rs.50,00,000/- is disallowable or it is provision for contingent liability. In other words, the finding of the ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Pune that the pro…

Synthesis Developers Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Principal CIT-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 550/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 550/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Synthesis Developers Pvt. Principal Commissioner बनाम/ Ltd. of Income Tax-4(PCIT) Vs. 311, C Wing, 3rd Floor, 701, Safal Pegasus, Nr. Auda Garden, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAMCS3092D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appe…

Sthapthya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 814/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 814/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Sthapathya Buildcon Pvt Ltd., D.C.I.T, Pavan Petroleum, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), Nutun Mill Compund, Ahmedabad. Near City Gold Cinema, Saraspur, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aalcs8818G

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…at "Explanation 2" is not applicable to the facts of the case. (g) Gujarat High Court in Aryan Arcade, 84 Taxmann.com 293, the contention is as per para 4 of the judgement and finding is as per para 10 wherein, the decision of Gujarat High Court in Rayon Silk 221 ITR 155, it is held that merely because the order of the assessment does not discus the issue at length, it would not mean that no inquiry was made. Finding is as per para 13 of the judgment. (h) The decision of Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad ITAT reported in 173 ITD 130 has also taken similar view regarding change of opinion. Therefore, the ac…

India Metal One Steel Plate Processing Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3497/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 3497/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. India Metal One Steel Plate The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Processing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Tax, Prestige Palladium Bayan, Corporate Circle – 2(2), 6Th Floor, Door No. 129 To 140 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aacci 5959F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (%&यथ'/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

…, 227 ITR 172 . The relevant portion of the order from Supreme Court decision is extracted as under (page 177 of 227 ITR) : :-10-: ITA No. 3497/Chny/2016 “The view taken by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. [1985] 156 ITR 542 was that the interest earned by the assessee on investment of share capital in call deposits even before production commenced could be assessed separately under the head “Other sources”. The Andhra Pradesh High Court took a contrary view in the case of CIT v. Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. [1988] 171 ITR 663 where it was held that interest received on sho…

Gumpro Drilling Fluids Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 15, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…TR 41 (Del.), xi. Bismillah Trading Company Ltd. vs IO (2001) 248 ITR 292, 308 (Kerala), xii. Paul Mathews & Sons vs CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101, 113 (Kerala), xiii. CIT vs Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490, 500 (Mad.), xiv. Rayon Silk Mills vs CIT 221 ITR 155 (Guj.) 2.17. If the aforesaid judicial pronouncements are kept in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeal and analyzed, the ld. Assessing Officer while framing the assessment made no discussion with the claim of the assessee and simply framed the assessment in a slip shot manner. Such an approach of the Ld. Assessing Officer cannot…