CIT v. Sponge Iron India Ltd.

201 ITR 770High Court1993#10320 most cited

What is CIT v. Sponge Iron India Ltd. authority for?

Business commencement is a mixed question of law and fact, where it is sufficient if an essential activity contributing to the carrying on of the business has begun, even if all constituent activities are not yet operational. There is a distinction between setting up a business, which means being ready to commence, and the actual commencement of business operations.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sponge Iron India Ltd. · commencement of business · setting up of business · question of fact and law · essential activity · business operations · 1993

Judgments citing CIT v. Sponge Iron India 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

…mer Khayyam Wineries (P) Ltd. (1979) 120 ITR 859 (AP High Court) ii. K. Sampath Kumar Vs. CIT (1986) 1581TR 25 (Madras High Court) iii. CIT Vs. Industrial Solvents and chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (1979) 119ITR 608 (Bombay HC) iv. CIT Vs. Sponge Iron India Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 770 (AP High Court) v. CWT Vs. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 478 (SC) vi Travencor – Cochin Chemicals Pvt Ltd. Vs CWT 65 ITR 651 (SC) vii. CIT Vs Electron India 241 ITR 166 (MAS) 31. Respectfully following the principles laid down as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the preoperative expenditure was to be capitalized to…

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

…mer Khayyam Wineries (P) Ltd. (1979) 120 ITR 859 (AP High Court) ii. K. Sampath Kumar Vs. CIT (1986) 1581TR 25 (Madras High Court) iii. CIT Vs. Industrial Solvents and chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (1979) 119ITR 608 (Bombay HC) iv. CIT Vs. Sponge Iron India Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 770 (AP High Court) v. CWT Vs. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 478 (SC) vi Travencor – Cochin Chemicals Pvt Ltd. Vs CWT 65 ITR 651 (SC) vii. CIT Vs Electron India 241 ITR 166 (MAS) 31. Respectfully following the principles laid down as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the preoperative expenditure was to be capitalized to…

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

…mer Khayyam Wineries (P) Ltd. (1979) 120 ITR 859 (AP High Court) ii. K. Sampath Kumar Vs. CIT (1986) 1581TR 25 (Madras High Court) iii. CIT Vs. Industrial Solvents and chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (1979) 119ITR 608 (Bombay HC) iv. CIT Vs. Sponge Iron India Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 770 (AP High Court) v. CWT Vs. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 478 (SC) vi Travencor – Cochin Chemicals Pvt Ltd. Vs CWT 65 ITR 651 (SC) vii. CIT Vs Electron India 241 ITR 166 (MAS) 31. Respectfully following the principles laid down as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the preoperative expenditure was to be capitalized to…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jatra Ruchi Cosmetics (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5877/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Jatra Ruchi Cosmetics Circle-13(1), (India) Pvt. Ltd, Cr Building, Shop No. 1 To 4, World New Delhi Trade Centre, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaccj2047F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…Ld. AO is actually, in favour of the Appellant arid against the Revenue. 2 CIT vs. Sponge During the assessment The Appellant had proceedings, the assessee business of direct selling Iron India Ltd. (1993) claimed deduction under the of cosmetic products. It (201 ITR 770) (AP) head 'Exploration and general had beep working on administration'. Later on, it creating business came to the notice of the processes and systems in assessing officer that order to accomplish its assessee had claimed business objectives of expenditure without direct selling. The its business being ready to Appellant had taken o commence sin…

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

…Nos. 1983 to 1985/Hyd/2011, dt. 04-05-2012 and ITO Vs. M/s. Trident Shelters Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 1160/Hyd/2012, dt. 22-01-2014. Assessee also relied on the principles laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case 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…

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

…Nos. 1983 to 1985/Hyd/2011, dt. 04-05-2012 and ITO Vs. M/s. Trident Shelters Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 1160/Hyd/2012, dt. 22-01-2014. Assessee also relied on the principles laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case 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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4344/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. C. M. Garg, Jm Ita No. 4344/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Vs M/S Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Circle-10(1), 1-E, Naaz Cinema Complex, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch8735M Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Singvi, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2015 Order Per N.K. Saini, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 24.05.2012 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Xiii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Singvi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 4Section 5A

…s L G Electronics (India) Ltd. (2006) 282 ITR 545 (Del) " CIT Vs Herbalife International India (P) Ltd. 297 ITR 303 (Del) " CIT Vs Sarabhai Management Corpn. Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 151 " Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs JCIT (2008) 19 SOT 593 " CIT Vs Sponge Iron Ltd. 201 ITR 770, 780 (AP) " M/s Club Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 287 ITR 552 (Mad) " DCIT Vs Core Health Care Ltd. 298 ITR 194 (2008) (SC) 7. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the addition made by the AO by observing in para 4.3 of the impugned order as under: “4.3 I have considered the observation of the Assessing Officer and submis…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jubilant Offshore Drilling Pvt Ltd

The appeal is dismissed in limine

ITA/694/2014HC Delhi24 Nov 2014
Section 271(1)(c)

…e second stage of business activity, but this would not undo the commercial and business activities relating to oil exploration. The assessment order itself refers to the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT versus Sponge Iron India Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 770 (AP) that for commencement of business all activities which go on to make business need not be started simultaneously. As soon as an activity which 2014:DHC:6347-DB is an essential activity in the course of carrying on the business is started, the business must be said to have commenced, yet the Assessing Officer failed to apply the said r…

Omniglobe Information Tech India Pvt Ltd

ITA/257/2012HC Delhi11 Aug 2014
Section 10B

…Page 17 of 18 the said steps were taken and it did not get postponed to the date of actual production. Referring to these decisions and other decisions, Andhra Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sponge Iron India Limited, (1993) 201 ITR 770 observed that whether business had commenced or not was a question of fact, but what activities constitute commencement of business was a mixed question of law and fact. Secondly, there was a distinction drawn between “setting up of business” and “commencement of the business”. Business is said to be „set up‟ when it is ready to commence. T…

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

ITTA/257/2012HC Telangana17 Jul 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

CIT v. Sponge Iron India Ltd. (201 ITR 770) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax