CIT v. Shirke Construction Equipment Pvt. Ltd.

291 ITR 380Supreme Court of India2007#7822 most cited

What is CIT v. Shirke Construction Equipment Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years must be set off against the income of the current year before calculating deductions under Chapter VIA of the Act, including those under Section 10A.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2019.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shirke Construction Equipment Ltd. · brought forward losses · unabsorbed depreciation · set off · Chapter VIA deductions · Section 10A · Section 80AB · Section 80IA

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing CIT v. Shirke Construction Equipment Pvt. Ltd.

C.J.Jewelleries Private Limted, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5975/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negic.J.Jewelleries Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit-5(1)(2) Room No.568, 5Th Floor 401, Block, Seepz, Midc Andheri (East) Aaykar Bhawan Mumbai-400 096 M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaccc3607N Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)

…is to be claimed alter setting off of brought forwarded business losses/unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Shrike Construction Equipment Ltd. (SC) 291 ITR 380 wherein it has been held that brought forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years needs to be deducted from profits ,of the year before calculating deduction under chapter VIA of the Act.” 4.3 In view of the same, the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years is first set off against the income of th…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 799/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘डी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.4565/AHD/2007 – AY 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1529/AHD/2009 – AY 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1256/AHD/2012 – AY 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.1941/AHD/2012 – AY 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.551/AHD/2016 – AY 2009-10 1-4. A.C.I.T/DCIT 1-4. M/s FAG Bearing India Ltd., Circle-1(2), At & PO. Maneja, Vs. Baroda-390010. Baroda. PAN: AAACF 3357 Q (Applicant) (Respondent) And…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nabros Pharma Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 788/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘डी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.4565/AHD/2007 – AY 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1529/AHD/2009 – AY 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1256/AHD/2012 – AY 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.1941/AHD/2012 – AY 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.551/AHD/2016 – AY 2009-10 1-4. A.C.I.T/DCIT 1-4. M/s FAG Bearing India Ltd., Circle-1(2), At & PO. Maneja, Vs. Baroda-390010. Baroda. PAN: AAACF 3357 Q (Applicant) (Respondent) And…

The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda vs. M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Vadodara

ITA 551/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘डी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.4565/AHD/2007 – AY 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1529/AHD/2009 – AY 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1256/AHD/2012 – AY 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.1941/AHD/2012 – AY 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.551/AHD/2016 – AY 2009-10 1-4. A.C.I.T/DCIT 1-4. M/s FAG Bearing India Ltd., Circle-1(2), At & PO. Maneja, Vs. Baroda-390010. Baroda. PAN: AAACF 3357 Q (Applicant) (Respondent) And…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(2), (Tpo), Baroda

ITA 2061/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘डी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.4565/AHD/2007 – AY 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1529/AHD/2009 – AY 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1256/AHD/2012 – AY 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.1941/AHD/2012 – AY 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.551/AHD/2016 – AY 2009-10 1-4. A.C.I.T/DCIT 1-4. M/s FAG Bearing India Ltd., Circle-1(2), At & PO. Maneja, Vs. Baroda-390010. Baroda. PAN: AAACF 3357 Q (Applicant) (Respondent) And…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 1197/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘डी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.4565/AHD/2007 – AY 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1529/AHD/2009 – AY 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1256/AHD/2012 – AY 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.1941/AHD/2012 – AY 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.551/AHD/2016 – AY 2009-10 1-4. A.C.I.T/DCIT 1-4. M/s FAG Bearing India Ltd., Circle-1(2), At & PO. Maneja, Vs. Baroda-390010. Baroda. PAN: AAACF 3357 Q (Applicant) (Respondent) And…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The CIT-I, Baroda

ITA 1453/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘डी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.4565/AHD/2007 – AY 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1529/AHD/2009 – AY 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1256/AHD/2012 – AY 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.1941/AHD/2012 – AY 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.551/AHD/2016 – AY 2009-10 1-4. A.C.I.T/DCIT 1-4. M/s FAG Bearing India Ltd., Circle-1(2), At & PO. Maneja, Vs. Baroda-390010. Baroda. PAN: AAACF 3357 Q (Applicant) (Respondent) And…

M/S.Fortune Elastomers P. Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. The ACIT, Cir-2(1), Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 154/COCH/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.154/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Fortune Elastomers P. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Kolathara P.O., Income-Tax,Circle-2(1), Kozhikode. Kozhikode-673 635. [Pan:Aaacf 5028Q].

Section 72Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…excluded. The Court found the order of the Tribunal was consistent with the statutory provisions and therefore appeal on this issue was rejected. Further, the Supreme Court considered a similar issue in the case of CIT vs. Shirke Construction Equipments Ltd. (291 ITR 380) wherein it was held that section I.T.A. No. 154/Coch/2018 80AB of the I.T. Act, specifying that profits are those as determined for the purpose of the Act, will apply for determining profits from export business for the purposes of the deduction u/s. 80HHC and in determining business profits for the deduction u/s. 80HHC, the unabsorbed business…

Dy. C.I.T.1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd., Raipur (Cg)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 365/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit- 1(2), Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd., Raipur (Cg). Plot No.482/2, Industrial Growth Vs. Centre, Phase- 1, Siltara, Raipur (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3Section 80Section 80I

…IT vs. Him Teknoforge Ltd. (2013) 256 CTR 393 (HP-HC); IPCA Laboratory Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 266 ITR 521 (SC); ITO vs. Induflex Products (P) Ltd. (2006) 280 ITR 1 (SC); A.M. Moosa vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Shirke Construction Equipments Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 380 (SC) and Synco Industries Ltd. vs. Assessing Officer & ANR (2008) 299 ITR 444 (SC). 5.3 In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the A.O. has erred in netting off the profits & losses of two eligible units and allowing the deduction thereon, in spite of the fact that the deduction under section 80-IA of the Act is available to th…

The DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Forbes Gokak Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 1573/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. D C I T – 1(1) (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Room No. 579 Vs. Forbes Bldg., Charanjit Ran Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent D C I T – 1(1) M/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Room No. 579 Vs. Forbes Bldg., Charanjit Ran Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave &For Respondent: Shri Pratap Sinh &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 295(4)Section 80H

…outset itself, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that this issue is to be held against the assessee in view of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Shirke Construction Equipment Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 380 (SC) and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of J.K. Industries vs. ACIT (2013) 351 ITR 434 (Kar). 8.2 After hearing both parties in the matter, we hold this issue against the assessee, and uphold the orders of the authorities below following, inter alia, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Shirke Construction…

Forbes & Company Limited (Formerly Known As Forbes Gokak Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 1382/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. D C I T – 1(1) (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Room No. 579 Vs. Forbes Bldg., Charanjit Ran Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent D C I T – 1(1) M/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Room No. 579 Vs. Forbes Bldg., Charanjit Ran Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave &For Respondent: Shri Pratap Sinh &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 295(4)Section 80H

…outset itself, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that this issue is to be held against the assessee in view of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Shirke Construction Equipment Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 380 (SC) and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of J.K. Industries vs. ACIT (2013) 351 ITR 434 (Kar). 8.2 After hearing both parties in the matter, we hold this issue against the assessee, and uphold the orders of the authorities below following, inter alia, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Shirke Construction…

M/S. Forbes Gokak Ltd, Mumbai vs. The JCIT OSD RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 6721/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosai, Jm Forbes Gokak Ltd., Forbes Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Building, Charajeet Rai Marg, Income Tax, Osd, Range Fort, Mumbai 400 001. 1 (1), Mumbai Pan: Aaacf 1765A Appellant .. Respondent The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Forbes Gokak Ltd., Forbes Income Tax, Range 1 (1), Building, Charajeet Rai Marg, Mumbai Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aaccf 1765A Appellant .. Respondent

Section 115OSection 14ASection 80H

…ned CIT (A) rejected the claim of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 351 ITR 434 in the case of J. K. Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (2013) 351 ITR 434 as well as the decision of the Hon’ble reported in [2007] 291 ITR 380 (SC) by holding that as per the aforesaid case laws, it is now settled that for the purpose of deduction u/s 80 HHC profits will have to be computed after giving full effect to other provisions of the Act, including the provisions relating to carry forward and set off. 9. The learned AR during the time of argument has not pointed out or placed…

The ACIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Forbes Gokak Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 6580/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosai, Jm Forbes Gokak Ltd., Forbes Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Building, Charajeet Rai Marg, Income Tax, Osd, Range Fort, Mumbai 400 001. 1 (1), Mumbai Pan: Aaacf 1765A Appellant .. Respondent The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Forbes Gokak Ltd., Forbes Income Tax, Range 1 (1), Building, Charajeet Rai Marg, Mumbai Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aaccf 1765A Appellant .. Respondent

Section 115OSection 14ASection 80H

…ned CIT (A) rejected the claim of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 351 ITR 434 in the case of J. K. Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (2013) 351 ITR 434 as well as the decision of the Hon’ble reported in [2007] 291 ITR 380 (SC) by holding that as per the aforesaid case laws, it is now settled that for the purpose of deduction u/s 80 HHC profits will have to be computed after giving full effect to other provisions of the Act, including the provisions relating to carry forward and set off. 9. The learned AR during the time of argument has not pointed out or placed…

Great Eastern Exports vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/267/2008HC Delhi29 Nov 2010

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…t that the Supreme Court has held that section 80AB has been given an overriding effect over all other sections in Chapter VIA of the Act {IPCA Laboratory Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2004) 266 ITR 521 (SC) and in the case of CIT Vs. Shirke Constructions Equipment Ltd. 291 ITR 380 (SC)}. 23. Continuing her submission along this line, Ms. Kapila contended that unlike the language in Section 80AB, the provision of Section 80IA (9) does not contain a non-obstante clause so as to supersede the non-obstante provision of Sec. 80AB, or Section 80B (5). If the provision of Section 80 IA (9) are to be read as diluting all…

CIT v. Shirke Construction Equipment Pvt. Ltd. (291 ITR 380) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax