CIT v. Vidyut Steel ltd.

219 ITR 30High Court#8895 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Vidyut Steel ltd.

SHAIK SHAKEER AHAMED. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 735/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 80

…the impugned orders, the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee's own cases for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 and for assessment year 1995-96, noted (supra), as also the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Vidyut Steel ltd.(219 ITR 30), are no longer a good law. In this view of the matter, finding no merit in the grievance of the assessee on this issue, we uphold the orders of the CIT(A) on this issue and reject the grounds of the assessee in these appeals.” Page 17 of 19 M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd., batch 39. Since identical issue has already been decided by the Tribunal aga…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 693/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 80

…the impugned orders, the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee's own cases for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 and for assessment year 1995-96, noted (supra), as also the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Vidyut Steel ltd.(219 ITR 30), are no longer a good law. In this view of the matter, finding no merit in the grievance of the assessee on this issue, we uphold the orders of the CIT(A) on this issue and reject the grounds of the assessee in these appeals.” Page 17 of 19 M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd., batch 39. Since identical issue has already been decided by the Tribunal aga…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 692/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 80

…the impugned orders, the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee's own cases for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 and for assessment year 1995-96, noted (supra), as also the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Vidyut Steel ltd.(219 ITR 30), are no longer a good law. In this view of the matter, finding no merit in the grievance of the assessee on this issue, we uphold the orders of the CIT(A) on this issue and reject the grounds of the assessee in these appeals.” Page 17 of 19 M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd., batch 39. Since identical issue has already been decided by the Tribunal aga…

KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 636/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 80

…the impugned orders, the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee's own cases for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 and for assessment year 1995-96, noted (supra), as also the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Vidyut Steel ltd.(219 ITR 30), are no longer a good law. In this view of the matter, finding no merit in the grievance of the assessee on this issue, we uphold the orders of the CIT(A) on this issue and reject the grounds of the assessee in these appeals.” Page 17 of 19 M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd., batch 39. Since identical issue has already been decided by the Tribunal aga…

KMC CONSTRUCTIONAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 635/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 80

…the impugned orders, the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee's own cases for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 and for assessment year 1995-96, noted (supra), as also the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Vidyut Steel ltd.(219 ITR 30), are no longer a good law. In this view of the matter, finding no merit in the grievance of the assessee on this issue, we uphold the orders of the CIT(A) on this issue and reject the grounds of the assessee in these appeals.” Page 17 of 19 M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd., batch 39. Since identical issue has already been decided by the Tribunal aga…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 33/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 80

…the impugned orders, the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee's own cases for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 and for assessment year 1995-96, noted (supra), as also the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Vidyut Steel ltd.(219 ITR 30), are no longer a good law. In this view of the matter, finding no merit in the grievance of the assessee on this issue, we uphold the orders of the CIT(A) on this issue and reject the grounds of the assessee in these appeals.” Page 17 of 19 M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd., batch 39. Since identical issue has already been decided by the Tribunal aga…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1075/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 80

…the impugned orders, the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee's own cases for assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 and for assessment year 1995-96, noted (supra), as also the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Vidyut Steel ltd.(219 ITR 30), are no longer a good law. In this view of the matter, finding no merit in the grievance of the assessee on this issue, we uphold the orders of the CIT(A) on this issue and reject the grounds of the assessee in these appeals.” Page 17 of 19 M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd., batch 39. Since identical issue has already been decided by the Tribunal aga…

DCIT CEN CIR 8(3), MUMBAI vs. OSSIAN EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2024/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Ossian Exports Income Tax Officer-14(2)(4) 902, Jewel World Earnest House Vs. Kalbadevi Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400002 Mumbai Pan – Aaacfo0992K Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle-8(3) M/S. Ossian Exports (Erstwhile Dcit, Cc-46) 902, Jewel World Room No. 659, 6Th Floor Vs. Kalbadevi Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacfo0992K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Ms. Anju Garodia
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 51(1)

…ee mentioned that the temporary deployment of funds should be assessed as ‘business income’ and not as ‘income from other sources’ as treated by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, Ld Counsel relied on the following decisions. i) CIT vs. Vidyut Steel Ltd. 219 ITR 30 (AP) ii) CIT vs. Koshika Telecom Ltd 287 ITR 479 (Del) iii) CIT vs. Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd 243 ITR 2 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Indo Swiss Jewells Ltd 284 ITR 389 (Bom) 15. On the other hand, Ld DR dutifully relied on the order of the AO. 16. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as citations qu…

OSSIAN EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1650/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Ossian Exports Income Tax Officer-14(2)(4) 902, Jewel World Earnest House Vs. Kalbadevi Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400002 Mumbai Pan – Aaacfo0992K Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle-8(3) M/S. Ossian Exports (Erstwhile Dcit, Cc-46) 902, Jewel World Room No. 659, 6Th Floor Vs. Kalbadevi Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacfo0992K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Ms. Anju Garodia
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 51(1)

…ee mentioned that the temporary deployment of funds should be assessed as ‘business income’ and not as ‘income from other sources’ as treated by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, Ld Counsel relied on the following decisions. i) CIT vs. Vidyut Steel Ltd. 219 ITR 30 (AP) ii) CIT vs. Koshika Telecom Ltd 287 ITR 479 (Del) iii) CIT vs. Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd 243 ITR 2 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Indo Swiss Jewells Ltd 284 ITR 389 (Bom) 15. On the other hand, Ld DR dutifully relied on the order of the AO. 16. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as citations qu…

JEWEL ART,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4908/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Jewel Art Dcit, Cc-13, Gala No. 19/22, Gem & Jewellery [Now Dcit, Cc-2(3)], Mumbai. Complex No. Ii, Seepz, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400096. Pan: Aacfj2646R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rishabh Shah (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2016 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm: 1. This Appeal U/S 253 Of The Income-Tax Act Is Directed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Dated 05.08.2015 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search & Seizure Action U/S 132 & Survey U/S 133A Of The Income-Tax Act Was Carried Out In Case Of Asian Star Group On 29.10.2010. Consequent Upon Search, The Notice U/S 153 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. In Response To The Notice, Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 27.09.2011. While Framing The Assessment U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Besides The Other Addition Made The Addition Of Rs. 44,59,441/- Holding That The Income From Other Sources Which Was Earned As Interest On Fd’S Is Not Eligible For Exemption U/S 10A. Aggrieved By The Order Of Ao, Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia (DR)
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 253Section 80I

…see mentioned that the temporary deployment of funds should be assessed as 'business income' and not as 'income from other sources' as treated by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, Ld Counsel relied on the following decisions. i) CIT vs. Vidyut Steel Ltd. 219 ITR 30 (AP) ii) CIT vs. Koshika Telecom Ltd 287 ITR 479 (Del) iii) CIT vs. Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd 243 ITR 2 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Indo Swiss Jewells Ltd 284 ITR 389 (8om) 15. On the other hand, Ld OR dutifully relied on the order of the AO. 16. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as citations qu…

PRESTRESS WIRE INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 12(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6467/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh Joshi, D.S. Kabra-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang-DR
Section 143Section 254(1)

…ee mentioned that the temporary deployment of funds should be assessed as „business income‟ and not as „income from other sources‟ as treated by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, Ld Counsel relied on the following decisions. i) CIT vs. Vidyut Steel Ltd. 219 ITR 30 (AP) ii) CIT vs. Koshika Telecom Ltd 287 ITR 479 (Del) iii) CIT vs. Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd 243 ITR 2 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Indo Swiss Jewells Ltd 284 ITR 389 (Bom) 15. On the other hand, Ld DR dutifully relied on the order of the AO. 16. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as citations qu…

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S BRITANNIA ENGINEERING LTD, KOLKATA

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

ITA 475/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Das,JCIT, Sr.DR

…connection with the business of the Assessee has to be assessed as business income not under the head “Income from other sources”. (1) CIT vs. Lok Holdings (308 ITR 356)(Bom) (2) CIT vs. Indo Swiss Jewels Ltd. (284 ITR 389)(Bom) (3) CIT vs. Vidyut Steel Ltd. (219 ITR 30)(AP) (4) CIT vs. Koshika Telecom Ltd. (Del) (5) CIT Vs. China Nachimuthu Constructions 297 ITR 70 (Karn.) 5. The CIT(A) agreed with the contention of the Assessee and he held as follows: 2.3 I have considered the above submission of the appellant and also gone through the assessment order. The appellant company is an Enterprise wholly owned by th…

CIT v. Vidyut Steel ltd. (219 ITR 30) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax