CIT v. Sukhjit Starch & Chemicals Limited

326 ITR 29High Court2010#12629 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. Sukhjit Starch & Chemicals Limited

Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1617/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…g Co. India Limited: 304 ITR 67 (Madras High Court) • CIT vs. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited: 311 ITR 202 (Madras High Court) • CIT vs. ITC Hotels Limited: 334 ITR 109 (Karnataka High Court) • CIT vs. Sukhjit Starch & Chemicals Limited: 326 ITR 29 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) • Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs JCIT: 36 SOT 348 (Mumbai ITAT) • CIT vs. Reliance Natural Resources Limited: 166 ITD 385 (Mumbai ITAT) In view of the aforesaid judicial precedents, the Ld. AR submitted that the expenses incurred by assessee on issue of FCCB’s calls for being allowed as deduction. 29. The Ld. DR rel…

M/S. Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2395/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…g Co. India Limited: 304 ITR 67 (Madras High Court) • CIT vs. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited: 311 ITR 202 (Madras High Court) • CIT vs. ITC Hotels Limited: 334 ITR 109 (Karnataka High Court) • CIT vs. Sukhjit Starch & Chemicals Limited: 326 ITR 29 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) • Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs JCIT: 36 SOT 348 (Mumbai ITAT) • CIT vs. Reliance Natural Resources Limited: 166 ITD 385 (Mumbai ITAT) In view of the aforesaid judicial precedents, the Ld. AR submitted that the expenses incurred by assessee on issue of FCCB’s calls for being allowed as deduction. 29. The Ld. DR rel…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Moser Baer India Limited, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1200/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…g Co. India Limited: 304 ITR 67 (Madras High Court) • CIT vs. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited: 311 ITR 202 (Madras High Court) • CIT vs. ITC Hotels Limited: 334 ITR 109 (Karnataka High Court) • CIT vs. Sukhjit Starch & Chemicals Limited: 326 ITR 29 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) • Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs JCIT: 36 SOT 348 (Mumbai ITAT) • CIT vs. Reliance Natural Resources Limited: 166 ITD 385 (Mumbai ITAT) In view of the aforesaid judicial precedents, the Ld. AR submitted that the expenses incurred by assessee on issue of FCCB’s calls for being allowed as deduction. 29. The Ld. DR rel…

Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6042/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…g Co. India Limited: 304 ITR 67 (Madras High Court) • CIT vs. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited: 311 ITR 202 (Madras High Court) • CIT vs. ITC Hotels Limited: 334 ITR 109 (Karnataka High Court) • CIT vs. Sukhjit Starch & Chemicals Limited: 326 ITR 29 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) • Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs JCIT: 36 SOT 348 (Mumbai ITAT) • CIT vs. Reliance Natural Resources Limited: 166 ITD 385 (Mumbai ITAT) In view of the aforesaid judicial precedents, the Ld. AR submitted that the expenses incurred by assessee on issue of FCCB’s calls for being allowed as deduction. 29. The Ld. DR rel…

Tata Moters Limited (Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Range.-2(3), Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 3336/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Pawan Singhtata Motors Limited. Dcit -2(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Street, Hutatma Chowk, Vs. Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Tata Motors Limited. Acit -2(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit -2(3) Tata Motors Limited. R. No. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Mumbai. Vs. Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Arati Vissanji (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2018

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

…f Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of India Cements Ltd. Vs CIT 60 ITR 52, CIT Vs ITC Hotel Ltd. 334 ITR 109 (Kar), CIT Vs Havells India Ltd. 352 ITR 376 (Del.), CIT Vs Instrumentation Ltd. (37 taxmann.com 271 (Raj.) and CIT Vs Sukhjit Starch & Chemicals Ltd. 326 ITR 29 (P & H). The ld. DR for the Revenue fairly conceded that this ground of appeal is also covered in favour of assessee. 10. We have considered the submission of ld. representative of the parties and find that similar ground of appeal was raised in assessee’s group companies in Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT in appeal for A.Y. 1987-88,m…

Gas & Power Investment Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1118/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1118/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Gas & Power The Ito, Ward 1(1)(4), बनाम/ Investment Co. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Asian Building, Mumbai-40 020 Ground Floor, 17, R. Kamani Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg 3843J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Ishwer Rathi Shri Mahendra Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Miss Bharti Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ishwer RathiFor Respondent: Miss Bharti Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40ASection 43BSection 619B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ I.TA No.1118/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/s. Gas & Power The ITO, Ward 1(1)(4), बनाम/ Investment Co. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Asian Building, Mumbai-40 020 Ground floor, 17, R. Kamani Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AACCG 3843J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by: Shri Ishwer Rathi Shri Mahendra Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/…

Prime Focus Ltd.., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. (Ods) C. RG. 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 8364/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singhi.T.A. No.8364/M/2011 (Assessment Year: 2008-2009) C.O.233/M/2012 (Arising Out Of Ita No.8066/M/2011) (Ay 2008-09) Prime Focus Limited, फनाभ/ Dcit (Osd-1), 1S T Floor, Old Dubbing & Central Range, Aayakar Vs. Recording Studio Building, Bhavan, Marine Lines, Dadasaheb Phalke Chitra Mumbai – 400 020. Nagari,Filmcity Campus, Opposite Hotel Food Paradise, Filmcity, Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 065. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacp6811B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar, DR
Section 14ASection 234D

…he special Bench ruling in the case of Ashima Syntex (supra):  Secure Meters Ltd (321 ITR 611) (Rajasthan High Court) – Supreme court has dismissed department‟s SLP vide appeal (Civil) 10548) of 2008 dated 11th August, 2009.  Sukhjit Starch & Chemicals Ltd (326 ITR 29) (P & H) High Court  ITC Hotels Ltd (334 ITR 109) (Karnataka High Court)  Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (36 SOT 348) (Mumbai Tribunal) Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (I) Ltd (ITA No. 4273/M/2011) dated 28th June, 2013  (Mumbai Tribunal) Faze Three Limited (ITA No.5449/M/2011) dated 16th August, 2013 (Mumbai  Tribunal)  Crane Software Internatio…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 3255/MUM/2010[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Goli Srinivas Rao
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…ed in relation to issuance of convertible debenture can be allowed as revenue expenditure. In this context, he relied upon the following case laws:- i) CIT v/s Secure Meters Ltd., [2011] 321 ITR 611 (Raj.) ii) CIT v/s Sukhijit Starch & Chemicals Ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 29 (P&H); iii) CIT v/s Havells India Ltd., [2012] 352 ITR 376 (P&H); iv) CIT v/s ITC Hotels Ltd., [2010] 334 ITR 109 (Kar.); v) CIT v/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., [2013] ITA no.93 of 2000 (Del.) Thus, he submitted that in view of the fact that different High Courts have held the expenditure on issuance of convertible debenture as revenue in nature,…

CIT v. Sukhjit Starch & Chemicals Limited (326 ITR 29) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax