CIT v. Tube Investments of India Ltd.

341 ITR 199High Court2012#11943 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10AASection 10DSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 250Section 263Section 80-O

Issues it is cited on

buyback of shareswaiver of loansection 145(1)section 43asection 28(iv)section 145(2)section 35dsection 43(1)section 271(l)(c)written down valuesection 41(1)rule of consistency

Judgments citing CIT v. Tube Investments of India Ltd.

Ych Logistics India Private Limited, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -3(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1330/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1330/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ych Logistics India Private Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Plot D V 1, Hi-Tech Sez Phase Ii, V. Income Tax, Sirumangadu Village, Sriperumbudur Corporate Circle -3(2), Taluk, Tamil Nadu 602 105. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacy-2873-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Kumar Jain, CA by VirtualFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 250Section 92C(3)Section 92D

…icles of association of an industrial company or in any other instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act..” The above view has been inter-alia upheld by the Madras High Court in the case of Tube Investments of India Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 341 ITR 199. “Services” in relation to SEZ  The term ‘services’ has not been defined in the Act. In this regard, the ld.AR submitted when the provisions of section 10AA of the Act owes its genesis to the SEZ Act, a reference could be drawn to the definition of the term ‘services’ as defined in the SEZ Act.  The extract of the definition of the term ‘servi…

ACIT Spl. Range-2, New Delhi vs. Cleta Real Estate Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 5312/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: ShriLaxmi Narayan Aggarwal, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Ms.YagyaSainiKakkar, Ld. CIT/DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…This view has been reiterated by different High Courts in the following cases a) CIT vs. First Leasing Company of India Ltd. (Madras High Court)- Tax case b) National Engg. Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (cal.) 236 ITR 577 c) CIT vs. Tube Investments (India) Ltd. 261 ITR 753 (Mad.) 8. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that Assessee’s claim in respect of proportionate premium on redemption of debentures and in the profit and loss account on the proportionate basis is allowed. Therefore, the addition has rightly been deleted. 6.3 We have given thoughtful consideration to facts and circ…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

ITA 2288/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 43A

…inuing benefit to the business of the company over the entire period. The liability should, therefore, be spread over the period of the debentures." 4.7. Following that ratio, the Madras High Court, in the case of CIT v. Tube Investments of (India) Ltd.[2003] 261 ITR 753, held that pro-rata annual allocation of premium payable on redemption of debentures is allowable as revenue expenditure. The Calcutta High Court, in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. CIT[1999] 236 ITR 577, held as below: "9. In our case, we are concerned not with debentures issued at a discount from the face value but with debe…

Paramount Communications Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

ITA 1378/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 43A

…inuing benefit to the business of the company over the entire period. The liability should, therefore, be spread over the period of the debentures." 4.7. Following that ratio, the Madras High Court, in the case of CIT v. Tube Investments of (India) Ltd.[2003] 261 ITR 753, held that pro-rata annual allocation of premium payable on redemption of debentures is allowable as revenue expenditure. The Calcutta High Court, in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. CIT[1999] 236 ITR 577, held as below: "9. In our case, we are concerned not with debentures issued at a discount from the face value but with debe…

M/S. Paramount Communictions Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

ITA 767/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 43A

…inuing benefit to the business of the company over the entire period. The liability should, therefore, be spread over the period of the debentures." 4.7. Following that ratio, the Madras High Court, in the case of CIT v. Tube Investments of (India) Ltd.[2003] 261 ITR 753, held that pro-rata annual allocation of premium payable on redemption of debentures is allowable as revenue expenditure. The Calcutta High Court, in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. CIT[1999] 236 ITR 577, held as below: "9. In our case, we are concerned not with debentures issued at a discount from the face value but with debe…

Windsor Machines Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 3, Thane

ITA 4696/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2709/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4696/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2710/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4697/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Windsor Machines Ltd. Dcit-Circle-3 Room No.2, “B” Wing, 6Th Floor बनाम/ 102/103, Devmilan Chs Next To Tip Top Plaza Vs. Ashar I.T. Park, Road No.16Z Lbs Road, Thane-(W)-400 604. Wagle Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-4302-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) : Assessee By : S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi & Shri Akhilesh Pevekar – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ : 07/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाक"तारीख/ : 28/05/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi &For Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 154

…decided not to extend the benefit of provisions of Sec. 115JB after assessee’s net worth turned positive. Therefore, no relief could be granted to the assessee on this point. The case law of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT V/s Tube Investments of India Ltd. (341 ITR 199) is factually distinguishable since the assessee’s net worth had not turned positive in that case and the relief as proposed by BIFR was not specifically rejected by the CBDT. Further, that case deal with deduction u/s 43B to an entity which has taken over a sick company. Therefore, the said case law, in our opinion, is not applicable to the fact…

Windsor Machines Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 3, Thane

ITA 2710/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2709/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4696/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2710/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4697/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Windsor Machines Ltd. Dcit-Circle-3 Room No.2, “B” Wing, 6Th Floor बनाम/ 102/103, Devmilan Chs Next To Tip Top Plaza Vs. Ashar I.T. Park, Road No.16Z Lbs Road, Thane-(W)-400 604. Wagle Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-4302-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) : Assessee By : S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi & Shri Akhilesh Pevekar – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ : 07/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाक"तारीख/ : 28/05/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi &For Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 154

…decided not to extend the benefit of provisions of Sec. 115JB after assessee’s net worth turned positive. Therefore, no relief could be granted to the assessee on this point. The case law of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT V/s Tube Investments of India Ltd. (341 ITR 199) is factually distinguishable since the assessee’s net worth had not turned positive in that case and the relief as proposed by BIFR was not specifically rejected by the CBDT. Further, that case deal with deduction u/s 43B to an entity which has taken over a sick company. Therefore, the said case law, in our opinion, is not applicable to the fact…

Windsor Machines Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 3, Thane

ITA 4697/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2709/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4696/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2710/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4697/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Windsor Machines Ltd. Dcit-Circle-3 Room No.2, “B” Wing, 6Th Floor बनाम/ 102/103, Devmilan Chs Next To Tip Top Plaza Vs. Ashar I.T. Park, Road No.16Z Lbs Road, Thane-(W)-400 604. Wagle Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-4302-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) : Assessee By : S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi & Shri Akhilesh Pevekar – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ : 07/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाक"तारीख/ : 28/05/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi &For Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 154

…decided not to extend the benefit of provisions of Sec. 115JB after assessee’s net worth turned positive. Therefore, no relief could be granted to the assessee on this point. The case law of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT V/s Tube Investments of India Ltd. (341 ITR 199) is factually distinguishable since the assessee’s net worth had not turned positive in that case and the relief as proposed by BIFR was not specifically rejected by the CBDT. Further, that case deal with deduction u/s 43B to an entity which has taken over a sick company. Therefore, the said case law, in our opinion, is not applicable to the fact…

Windsor Machines Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 3, Thane

ITA 2709/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2709/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4696/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2710/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4697/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Windsor Machines Ltd. Dcit-Circle-3 Room No.2, “B” Wing, 6Th Floor बनाम/ 102/103, Devmilan Chs Next To Tip Top Plaza Vs. Ashar I.T. Park, Road No.16Z Lbs Road, Thane-(W)-400 604. Wagle Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-4302-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) : Assessee By : S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi & Shri Akhilesh Pevekar – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ : 07/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाक"तारीख/ : 28/05/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi &For Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 154

…decided not to extend the benefit of provisions of Sec. 115JB after assessee’s net worth turned positive. Therefore, no relief could be granted to the assessee on this point. The case law of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT V/s Tube Investments of India Ltd. (341 ITR 199) is factually distinguishable since the assessee’s net worth had not turned positive in that case and the relief as proposed by BIFR was not specifically rejected by the CBDT. Further, that case deal with deduction u/s 43B to an entity which has taken over a sick company. Therefore, the said case law, in our opinion, is not applicable to the fact…

CIT v. Tube Investments of India Ltd. (341 ITR 199) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax