CIT v. Varun Shipping C. Ltd.

334 ITR 263Supreme Court of India2011#8591 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

preponderance of probabilitycolourable devicepanchnamablock periodloose papersdocuments seizedsatisfaction notesection 234asection 250(6)accommodation entrysection 132(4)section 271(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Varun Shipping C. Ltd.

THE MODERN CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 432/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…t\nwas only the statement of witnesses which was relied upon, right to\nexamination had to be given.\n18.2 The above being the position of law with regard to opportunity\nof cross examination, We have further noted that in the case of ITO\nvs. M. Pirai Choodi 334 ITR 263 (SC) where the High Court had set\naside the order of assessment on the ground that no opportunity of\ncross-examination was granted to the assessee, the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court held that High Court should not set aside the entire\nassessment order but should direct the Assessing Officer to grant an\nopportunity to the assessee to cross-examine th…

THE UNITED BUILDERS CORPORATION ,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 3465/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…t\nwas only the statement of witnesses which was relied upon, right to\nexamination had to be given.\n18.2 The above being the position of law with regard to opportunity\nof cross examination, We have further noted that in the case of ITO\nvs. M. Pirai Choodi 334 ITR 263 (SC) where the High Court had set\naside the order of assessment on the ground that no opportunity of\ncross-examination was granted to the assessee, the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court held that High Court should not set aside the entire\nassessment order but should direct the Assessing Officer to grant an\nopportunity to the assessee to cross-examine th…

MODERN CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 3464/AHD/2016[2013-14 (Q-4)]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…t\nwas only the statement of witnesses which was relied upon, right to\nexamination had to be given.\n18.2 The above being the position of law with regard to opportunity\nof cross examination, We have further noted that in the case of ITO\nvs. M. Pirai Choodi 334 ITR 263 (SC) where the High Court had set\naside the order of assessment on the ground that no opportunity of\ncross-examination was granted to the assessee, the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court held that High Court should not set aside the entire\nassessment order but should direct the Assessing Officer to grant an\nopportunity to the assessee to cross-examine th…

ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. TOLANI SHIPPING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 7035/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7035/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिधम/ Acit-5(3)(2) M/S. Tolani Shipping Co. Room No.573, Aayakar Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, 5Th Floor, M. K. 10-A, Bakhtawar, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact4127C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Mishra (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Satya Prakash सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -58 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition Of Rs.30,96,52,860/- Made By The Ao/Tpo To Rs.12,00,43,750/- On Account Of Profit Split Method, Ignoring That The Tpo Rejected A.Y.2008-09 The Cup Method After Giving Detailed Reasons In The Order Passed U/S 92Ca(3).

For Appellant: Shri Satya PrakashFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra (DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 50Section 92C

…ound tenable. The appellant has substantial borrowing and has paid interest of over Rs.20 cr. The interest has been earned on short term deposits only, in respect of funds which were to be used for business purpose by the appellant. In Varun Shipping Co. Ltd. 334 ITR 263 Bom. the company was to buy a new ship for which it had borrowed funds and had obtained RBI approval and it earned interest on the unutilized portion of this amount. AO brought this amount to tax as income from other sources. However, ITAT held that this activity was a part of appellant’s business and hence interest earned was liable to be treate…

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 737/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…Chny/2018 5.3 The ld.AR for the assessee on the other hand supporting order of the ld.CIT(A) submitted that the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Varun Shipping C. Ltd., 334 ITR 263, where the Hon’ble High Court held that interest income derived by a shipping company out of surplus funds kept in short term deposits was very much part and parcel of core activity of shipping business. He further referring to decision of ITAT, Mumbai in case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., vs. ADIT, 31 ITR (Trib) 545, submitted that inco…

DCIT-2(1), , CHENNAI vs. THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD,, CHENNAI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2210/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…Chny/2018 5.3 The ld.AR for the assessee on the other hand supporting order of the ld.CIT(A) submitted that the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Varun Shipping C. Ltd., 334 ITR 263, where the Hon’ble High Court held that interest income derived by a shipping company out of surplus funds kept in short term deposits was very much part and parcel of core activity of shipping business. He further referring to decision of ITAT, Mumbai in case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., vs. ADIT, 31 ITR (Trib) 545, submitted that inco…

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -2(1), CHENNAI vs. THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2145/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…Chny/2018 5.3 The ld.AR for the assessee on the other hand supporting order of the ld.CIT(A) submitted that the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Varun Shipping C. Ltd., 334 ITR 263, where the Hon’ble High Court held that interest income derived by a shipping company out of surplus funds kept in short term deposits was very much part and parcel of core activity of shipping business. He further referring to decision of ITAT, Mumbai in case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., vs. ADIT, 31 ITR (Trib) 545, submitted that inco…

THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2038/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…Chny/2018 5.3 The ld.AR for the assessee on the other hand supporting order of the ld.CIT(A) submitted that the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Varun Shipping C. Ltd., 334 ITR 263, where the Hon’ble High Court held that interest income derived by a shipping company out of surplus funds kept in short term deposits was very much part and parcel of core activity of shipping business. He further referring to decision of ITAT, Mumbai in case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., vs. ADIT, 31 ITR (Trib) 545, submitted that inco…

WEST GUJARAT EXRESSWAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 3668/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. West Gujarat Vs. Dcit – 14(3)1 Expressway Ltd., (Erstwhile Dy. The Il & Fs Financial Commissioner Of Income Center, Plot No.C-22, G Tax – 10(1), Room No.460 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai – 400 051 Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacw5862D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dcit – 14(3)1 Vs. M/S. West Gujarat Expressway Room No.453 Ltd., 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan The Il & Fs Financial Center, M.K. Marg Plot No.C-22, G Block, Bandra- Mumbai – 400 020 Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacw5862D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…e same, hence the issue was covered with the decision of the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd.” 11 DTR 21 and further with that of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Varun Shipping Company Ltd” 334 ITR 263 (HC). The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the claim of the assessee for treatment of the income as business income. 6. Respectfully following the above order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case, we do not find any merit in the action of lower authorities treating the interest income under the head of “income from other sources.” 7. The other ground…

SCI FORBES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6348/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Shapoorji Pallonji Forbes Income Tax Officer-5(3)(2), Shipping Ltd. (Formerly Room No.526B बनाम/ Known As Sci Forbes Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. C/O- Kalyaniwalla & Mistry M.K. Road, Llp, Esplanade House, Mumbai-400020 02Nd Floor, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aakcs0662F

Section 115VSection 56

…f vessels / tankers, the interest income earned on such security is part of ‘relevant shipping income’, hence, covered under Chapter–XII–G of the Act. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Varun Shipping Co. Ltd., 334 ITR 263; ii) DCIT v/s Hari Orgochem P. Ltd., 45 taxmann.com 381; iii) Empire Pumps Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, 229 taxman 379; iv) PCIT v/s Facor Power Ltd., 380 ITR 474; v) CIT v/s Arihant Threads Ltd., 12 taxmann.com 69; vi) Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. v/s ITO, 52 taxmann.com 347; 7 Shapoorji Pallonji Forbes Shipping Ltd. (Formerly known as SCI Forbes Ltd.),…

TOLANI P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT SP RG 31, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5562/MUM/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 1998-99 Tolani Pvt Ltd. Addl. Cit Spl. Range 31, 10.A, Bakhtawar Vs. Mumbai Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri V. Justine
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 244ASection 33ASection 57

…scounting inter corporate deposits. This, in fact, in our opinion, is interest earned on unutilised amount borrowed for business purpose. Our view is duly covered by the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Varun Shipping Co. Ltd. 334 ITR 263. It is not denied by the learned DR, even though he has vehemently relied on the order of the authorities below that main business of the assessee is shipping business and the assessee has also taken loan from SCICI Ltd. for the purchase of ship and charting in vessels. The assessee since could not immediately acquire the ship, has advanced the…

DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. SWAN ENERGY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5442/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma() & Shri Amarjeet Singh () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. J.P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri. H.N. Singh
Section 143(3)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI AMARJEET SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT 7(2) Vs. Swan Energy Ltd. R.No. 624, M.K. Road (Formerly Swan Mills Ltd.) 6 Feltham House, 2nd Floor Mumbai- 400020 J.N. Herdia Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai- 400001 PAN No. AABCS7890Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri. H.N. Singh Assessee By : Shri. J.P. Bairagra Date of Hearing : 07/09/2016 Date of pronouncement : 24/10/2016 O R D ER PER R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the…

M/S ENVISIION NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1257/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mallaharao K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad, JCIT (D.R)
Section 14A

…ure is allowable under Section 36(1) of the Act therefore the provisions of section 14A are not attracted. He has relied upon the following decisions : (i) CIT Vs. Indo Swiss Jewels Ltd. & Anr. (2008) 284 ITR 389. (ii) CIT Vs. Varun Shipping Co. Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 263. 9. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that there is no dispute that the assessee has used borrowed fund for the purpose of investment in the mutual funds yielding tax free income. Therefore the provisions of section 14A are applicable in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has pointed out that out of the loan of Rs.2 Crore…