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.

Manoir Petro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…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.) 2.18. If the aforesaid judicial pronouncements are kept in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeal and analyzed, we find that the assessee company credited Rs.83,94,764/- to the profit & loss account as other income, whereas, the Ld. Assessing Officer has taken taxable income of Rs.17,22,360/- only. The Ld. Assessing Officer…

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…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.) 5.3. 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…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…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.) 2.7. If the aforesaid judicial pronouncements are kept in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeals and analyzed, the ld. Assessing Officer while framing the assessment made no discussion with the claim of the assessee with respect to all the parties, wherein, even the notices u/s 133(6) were returned unserved by the postal De…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…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.) 2.7. If the aforesaid judicial pronouncements are kept in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeals and analyzed, the ld. Assessing Officer while framing the assessment made no discussion with the claim of the assessee with respect to all the parties, wherein, even the notices u/s 133(6) were returned unserved by the postal De…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…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.) 2.10. 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/enquiry, during assessment proceedings, with respect to observations made by the ld. CIT in the revisional order. 24 The Mumbai District Cent…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…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.) 2.7. 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 respect to outstanding unsecured loans of Rs.1,27,28,994/- as on 31/03/2012, claim to be taken from Gyanchand Manhot and Purshpa Devi M…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…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.) 2.9. In the light of the aforementioned judicial pronouncements, now we shall analyze the facts of the case of Shri Devang Gandhi (ITA No.3747/Mum/2016). It is noted that the Ld. Assessing Officer framed assessment without making required enquiries/investigation in terms of explanation-2 to section 263 of the Act. The Ld. Assessing O…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…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.) 2.9. In the light of the aforementioned judicial pronouncements, now we shall analyze the facts of the case of Shri Devang Gandhi (ITA No.3747/Mum/2016). It is noted that the Ld. Assessing Officer framed assessment without making required enquiries/investigation in terms of explanation-2 to section 263 of the Act. The Ld. Assessing O…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…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.) 2.9. In the light of the aforementioned judicial pronouncements, now we shall analyze the facts of the case of Shri Devang Gandhi (ITA No.3747/Mum/2016). It is noted that the Ld. Assessing Officer framed assessment without making required enquiries/investigation in terms of explanation-2 to section 263 of the Act. The Ld. Assessing O…

Canara Bank vs. CIT

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 743/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Canara Bank, Bsca Section, Head Office, J C Road, Bengaluru-560 002. Pan: Aaacc 6106 G … Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 115PSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s.Canara Bank, BSCA Section, Head Office, J C Road, Bengaluru-560 002. PAN: AAACC 6106 G … Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU, Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri G.Sarangan, Sr. Advocate Shri Ananathan, CA. Respondent by : Shri Pramod Singh, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 10/08/2017 Date of pronouncement : 06/11/2017 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee-company directed against the order of the Commissioner of…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…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.) 2.8. If the aforesaid judicial pronouncements are kept in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeal and analyzed, the ld. Assessing Officer has not gone into the 13 M/s Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care aspects, which has been observed in the impugned order and the information received from the investigation wing was not pr…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Bank Note Paper Mill India (P) Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 692/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoincome-Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Bank Note Paper Mill India Pvt. Ltd. I Floor, Sr Complex, No.2, Tavarakere Main Road, Sg Paly, Drc Post, Bengaluru-560029. … Respondent Pan:Aaecb 3245M & Cross Objn.No.177/Bang/2015 (In Ita No.692/Bang/2015) (Assessment Year: 2011-12) (By The Assessee) ***** Assessee By : Shri S.Parthasarathi, Advocate. Revenue By : Smt.Swapna Das, Jcit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Swapna Das, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ITR 172), interest income is chargeable to tax under the head ‘income from other ITA No.692 & CO 177/Bang/2015 Page 3 of 14 sources’. The AO also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (156 ITR 542). 3. Being aggrieved by the above decision, an appeal was preferred before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the AO had no jurisdiction to convert the case to scrutiny assessment as the case of the assessee is outside the scrutiny guidelines. However, the CIT(A), while confirming that the case was selected for scrutiny u…

Estrela Batteries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2122/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2010-11
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…ading Company Ltd. vs IO (2001) 248 ITR 292, 308 (Kerala), 5 M/s Estrela Batteries Ltd 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.) 2.3. However, if the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases is analyzed with respect to the facts of the present appeal, it is noted that the assessee declared total loss of Rs.68,97,886/- in its return filed on 21/09/2010. The assessment was completed on 22/03/2013 u/s 143(3) of the Act, determining the total income at Nil. The ld. Princi…