CIT v. Vidyut Corporation

ACIT (LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

…elied on the following case laws: - a) CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd [2016] 383 ITR 217 (SC)] b) Arvind Footwear Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.363/Lkw/2010) c) Suzlon Energy Limited vs. DCIT (32 taxmann.com 349) (Ahd) (Trib.) d) CIT vs. Vidyut Corporation [2010] 324 ITR 221 (Bom) e) CIT vs. Advance Detergents Ltd [2010] 339ITR 81 (Delhi) 24. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 25. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, the issue raised before us is that whether the income earned by the assessee relating to interest earned from the suppliers and duty draw…

ACIT-12(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MIDCITY BHOOMI DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…see is engaged in the business of builders and developers. Considering the nature of the business of the assessee, it is clear that assessee is not in the business of financing activity at all by relying on the decision of the CIT v. Vidyut Corporation (2010) 324 ITR 221 (BOM) interest received by the company would be taxable under the head “income from other sources” and not from “income from business”. 9. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before Ld.CIT(A) assessee filed detailed submissions, for the sake of clarity it is reproduced below: - “with regard to disa…

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

…on charges received by the assessee are nothing but income derived from eligible business and assessee has rightfully included such income while computing deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: - a) Vidyut corporation [324 ITR 221] (Bombay High Court) b) Sadhu Forging Ltd [336 ITR 444] (Delhi High Court) c) Sesa Industries Ltd [415 ITR 257] (Bombay High Court) d) Arun Mariammal Textiles Ltd [97 taxmann.com 298) (Madras HC) e) Vimal Builders in ITA.No. 3451/8MUM/2008 dated 09.09.2009. 34 ITA No. 2147 & 2348/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2014-15) Lodha Developers Limited {since merged M/s.…

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

…on charges received by the assessee are nothing but income derived from eligible business and assessee has rightfully included such income while computing deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: - a) Vidyut corporation [324 ITR 221] (Bombay High Court) b) Sadhu Forging Ltd [336 ITR 444] (Delhi High Court) c) Sesa Industries Ltd [415 ITR 257] (Bombay High Court) d) Arun Mariammal Textiles Ltd [97 taxmann.com 298) (Madras HC) e) Vimal Builders in ITA.No. 3451/8MUM/2008 dated 09.09.2009. 34 ITA No. 2147 & 2348/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2014-15) Lodha Developers Limited {since merged M/s.…

SIEMENS LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT SP RG 30, MUMBAI

Accordingly ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2018/Mum/2011 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 1997-98)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2018/Mum/2011 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 1997-98) ACIT Range – 7(2), M/s Siemens Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 130, Pandurang Budhkar, M. K. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAACS0764L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri T. Kipgen, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 25.09.2019 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 10.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement आदेश /…

SHREE GANESHAYA TRADING CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 13(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2198/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ M/S. Shree Ganeshaya Ito Wd 13(2)(3) Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai A-302, Gokul Garden, V. Thakur Complex, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400101 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aakcs0949M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Ryan Saldanha Revenue By : Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2198/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 01.02.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In The Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Tribunal”) Read As Under:-

…773/- , the learned counsel for the assessee submitted it is not an interest payment but charges paid on delayed payment on purchase of shares to brokers . The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon following case laws:- CIT v. Vidyut Corporation [2010] 324 ITR 221 (Bombay) Central Bank of India v JCIT [2006] 99 ITD 34 (MUM.) ITO v M K J Enterprises Ltd (2014) 42 taxmann.com 460 (Kol) 7.The Ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record including case laws cited before us and orders of the authorities…

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ABBOTT INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

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

…mers is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench ‘C’ in assessee’s own case for AY 1998-99 ITA No.1421/Mum/2002 wherein the ITAT, by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Vidyut Corporation 324 ITR 221 (Bom) held that interest from customers qualified for being eligible for computation of deductions u/s 80I & 80IA. The Ld.AR further submitted that even though the assessee has not considered other receipts for AY 1998-99, because the assessee did not press the issue, but fact remains that cash discount received from customers forms part of…

M.K. INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S M. K. Industries The Asst. Commissioner Of Income 182, Aram Nagar Part Ii, Opp. Tax, Circle 15(2) Pramal Bldg, J.P. Road, Vs. Mumbai Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400061 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aajfm0500A .. Shri Harsh Kothari, Ar Assessee By Revenue By .. Shri Dr. Suman Ratnam, Dr .. Date Of Hearing 09-02-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 28-02-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

…proposed question of law. 9. It may be pointed out that Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue brings to our notice the decisions of this Court in CIT v/s. Dresser Rand India (P) Ltd. [2011] 11 Taxmann 281 and CIT v/s. Vidyut Corporation 324 ITR 221 – wherein this Court has held that interest on deposits etc. would not be allowable deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. However, both these decisions were rendered without taking into consideration the decision in Respondent-Assessee's own case in CIT v./s. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi (supra). 10. As question raised by the Revenue stands conclud…