CITA v. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing and Export Corporation Ltd.

377 ITR 496High Court2015#5783 most cited

What is CITA v. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing and Export Corporation Ltd. authority for?

Interest earned by a State Government Corporation on temporary deposits of grants received from the State Government, during the construction period, is taxable as income from other sources.

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CITA v. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing and Export Corporation Ltd. · 377 ITR 496 · interest income · State Government grants · construction period · taxable income · income from other sources · section 56

Sections most often in play

Section 2017Section 56 of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 56income from other sourcescondonation of delaysection 142(1)companyindianfactotal incomebusinessdocumentinterest

Judgments citing CITA v. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing and Export Corporation Ltd.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere vs. Managing Director Davangere Smart City Limited, Davangere

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 858/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 857 & 858/Bang/2023 Assessment years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. The Managing Director, Ward 1, Davanagere Smart City Ltd., Davangere. Shree Towers, Hadadi Road, Davangere – 577 004. PAN : AAKCM 6546J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Respondent by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Date of hearing : 24.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Davangere vs. Managing Director Davanagere Smart City Limited, Davangere

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 857/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 857 & 858/Bang/2023 Assessment years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. The Managing Director, Ward 1, Davanagere Smart City Ltd., Davangere. Shree Towers, Hadadi Road, Davangere – 577 004. PAN : AAKCM 6546J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Respondent by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Date of hearing : 24.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 923/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…case in ITA No. 117/2015 c/w 118/2015 wherein the decision of CIT Vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation [(2009) 315 ITR 301 (Kar)] and CIT Vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing and Export Corporation Ltd. [(2015) 377 ITR 496 (Kar.)] have been relied upon which are distinguishable as in those cases there was welfare and no profit motive was involved whereas in instant case, the profit motive is germane as the assessee is providing transport facility and earn income from the sale of tickets to the customers? 3. This appeal is filed by the revenue belatedly by 3 days a…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

ITA/118/2015HC Karnataka23 Nov 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 10(35)Section 260

…nfrastructure project. 10. Placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of KUIDFC, supra and Commissioner of Income-tax and another vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing and Export Corporation Ltd., reported in (2015) 377 ITR 496 (Karn.), learned Senior counsel submitted that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeals. Learned Senior counsel made an endeavor to distinguish the judgment in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., supra, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Further, the Government Order dated 25.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

ITA/117/2015HC Karnataka23 Nov 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 10(35)Section 260

…nfrastructure project. 10. Placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of KUIDFC, supra and Commissioner of Income-tax and another vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing and Export Corporation Ltd., reported in (2015) 377 ITR 496 (Karn.), learned Senior counsel submitted that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeals. Learned Senior counsel made an endeavor to distinguish the judgment in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., supra, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Further, the Government Order dated 25.…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3319/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…(a) CIT vs. SitaldasTirathdas (1961)(41 ITR 367)(SC) (b) Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain vs. CIT (1991)(190 ITR 1)(SC) (c) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (2003)(259 ITR 10)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing & Export Corporation Ltd (2015)(377 ITR 496)(Kar) (e) CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd (2010)(321 ITR 546)(Kar) (f) CIT vs. A Tosh & Sons (P) Ltd (1987)(166 ITR 867)(Kol) (g) Shroff Eye Centre vs. ACIT (h) Sri T Jayachandran vs. DCIT (2012-TIOL-977-HC-MAD-IT) (i) FR Sabu P Thomas vs. UOI (2015-TIOL-514-HC-Kerala-IT) (j) A F Ferguson & Co vs. ACIT (2011- TIOL-604-ITAT-Mum) (k) CIT vs. Pandavapu…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3318/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…(a) CIT vs. SitaldasTirathdas (1961)(41 ITR 367)(SC) (b) Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain vs. CIT (1991)(190 ITR 1)(SC) (c) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (2003)(259 ITR 10)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing & Export Corporation Ltd (2015)(377 ITR 496)(Kar) (e) CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd (2010)(321 ITR 546)(Kar) (f) CIT vs. A Tosh & Sons (P) Ltd (1987)(166 ITR 867)(Kol) (g) Shroff Eye Centre vs. ACIT (h) Sri T Jayachandran vs. DCIT (2012-TIOL-977-HC-MAD-IT) (i) FR Sabu P Thomas vs. UOI (2015-TIOL-514-HC-Kerala-IT) (j) A F Ferguson & Co vs. ACIT (2011- TIOL-604-ITAT-Mum) (k) CIT vs. Pandavapu…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3317/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…(a) CIT vs. SitaldasTirathdas (1961)(41 ITR 367)(SC) (b) Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain vs. CIT (1991)(190 ITR 1)(SC) (c) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (2003)(259 ITR 10)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing & Export Corporation Ltd (2015)(377 ITR 496)(Kar) (e) CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd (2010)(321 ITR 546)(Kar) (f) CIT vs. A Tosh & Sons (P) Ltd (1987)(166 ITR 867)(Kol) (g) Shroff Eye Centre vs. ACIT (h) Sri T Jayachandran vs. DCIT (2012-TIOL-977-HC-MAD-IT) (i) FR Sabu P Thomas vs. UOI (2015-TIOL-514-HC-Kerala-IT) (j) A F Ferguson & Co vs. ACIT (2011- TIOL-604-ITAT-Mum) (k) CIT vs. Pandavapu…

M/S. Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Company, Sandur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT
Section 145Section 28Section 5

…(a) CIT vs. SitaldasTirathdas (1961)(41 ITR 367)(SC) (b) Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain vs. CIT (1991)(190 ITR 1)(SC) (c) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (2003)(259 ITR 10)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing & Export Corporation Ltd (2015)(377 ITR 496)(Kar) (e) CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd (2010)(321 ITR 546)(Kar) (f) CIT vs. A Tosh & Sons (P) Ltd (1987)(166 ITR 867)(Kol) (g) Shroff Eye Centre vs. ACIT (h) Sri T Jayachandran vs. DCIT (2012-TIOL-977-HC-MAD-IT) (i) FR Sabu P Thomas vs. UOI (2015-TIOL-514-HC-Kerala-IT) (j) A F Ferguson & Co vs. ACIT (2011-TIOL-604-ITAT-Mum) (k) CIT vs. Pandavapur…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Road Developemnt Corporation Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by revenue in ITA No

ITA 935/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. B. J. Shetty, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 43B

…ka High Court in case of CIT vs Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation reported in (2006) 284 ITR 582 and (2009) 351 ITR 301 and CIT vs Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing and Export Corporation Ltd., reported in (2015) 377 ITR 496 and Karnataka Municipal Data Society reported in (2016) 389 ITR 441. 5.5.1. He submitted that, contention of revenue that, interest on loans borrowed to be capitalised are not eligible for set off, is contrary to the facts of the case. Ld.AR submitted that, interest received on temporary deposits made out specific grants as a nodal agency/custodi…

M/S Karnataka State Co-Operative Federation Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 866/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 57Section 57A

…athdas 41 ITR 367 and judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (KUIDFC) 284 ITR 582; CIT Vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produces Processing and Export Corporation Ltd. 377 ITR 496; CIT Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. 198 ITR 690. He relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. 116 ITR 60. Further he submitted that it cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee as it is received by the as with an obligation to spend as per Section 57A of the…

M/S Karnataka State Co-Operative Federation Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 865/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 57Section 57A

…athdas 41 ITR 367 and judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (KUIDFC) 284 ITR 582; CIT Vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produces Processing and Export Corporation Ltd. 377 ITR 496; CIT Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. 198 ITR 690. He relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. 116 ITR 60. Further he submitted that it cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee as it is received by the as with an obligation to spend as per Section 57A of the…

M/S. Karnataka State Co-Operative Federation Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 864/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 57Section 57A

…athdas 41 ITR 367 and judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (KUIDFC) 284 ITR 582; CIT Vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produces Processing and Export Corporation Ltd. 377 ITR 496; CIT Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. 198 ITR 690. He relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. 116 ITR 60. Further he submitted that it cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee as it is received by the as with an obligation to spend as per Section 57A of the…

The Indian Film Combine P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 16, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1985/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Film Combine Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-16 Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Room No.442, Aayakar 1St Floor, Maker Tower „F‟ Bhawan, M.K. Road, Cuffe-Parade, Mumbai- Mumbai. 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaaci3611E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash Jothwani (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.01.2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “I. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -16 ("Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit"), Ignoring The Relevant Facts On Record, Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Holding That The Assessment Order Passed By The Ito 16(1)(5) ("Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned Ao") U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 26.12.2016 Is Erroneous So As To Be Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue & Directing The Ao To Decide All The Issues Afresh. The Appellant Submits That The Order U/S.263 Of The Act For Modifying The Order U/S.143(3) Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Illegal, Ultra-Virus, In Excess Of And/Or In Want Of Jurisdiction & Otherwise Void. 2. The Pcit Failed To Appreciate That The A.O. While Passing Order U/S 143(3) Has Considered The Facts Of The Case & Had Taken The Legally Correct View. The Pcit Erroneously Observed That There Is At Least Some

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jothwani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…d in 315 ITR 244, Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. reported in 354 ITR 201 and Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produced Processing and Export Corporation Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 496. All the decisions were rendered prior to the framing of assessment by Ld. AO and were very much in the public domain. Hence it has to be presumed that the Ld. AO had indeed considered those decisions and had taken a possible view while framing the assessment. Once a possible view has been taken, the same cannot be subjected to review by Ld. CIT…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sentia Power Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA number 146/Del/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 1461/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisentia Power Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Known As Indiabulls Ward-11(4), Cseb Bhiyathan Power Ltd), New Delhi M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sentia Power Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Circle 23(2) Indiabulls Cseb Bhiyathan New Delhi Power Ltd), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr DR

…rations of the company during the construction period and the same was eligible for deduction against public issue expenses incurred by company as it was on capital account. vii. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing & Export Corporation Ltd. [2015] 377 ITR 496 (Karnataka) Facts of the judgment: The assessee was a company, fully owned by the Government of Karnataka, engaged in trading in agricultural produce and was an approved channelising agent for Bangalore in respect of rose, onion and niger seeds. The Government sanctioned Rs 10 crores for improvement of infrastructure in order to encourage the far…

M/S. Sentia Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, ITA number 146/Del/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 3498/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisentia Power Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Known As Indiabulls Ward-11(4), Cseb Bhiyathan Power Ltd), New Delhi M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sentia Power Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Circle 23(2) Indiabulls Cseb Bhiyathan New Delhi Power Ltd), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr DR

…rations of the company during the construction period and the same was eligible for deduction against public issue expenses incurred by company as it was on capital account. vii. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing & Export Corporation Ltd. [2015] 377 ITR 496 (Karnataka) Facts of the judgment: The assessee was a company, fully owned by the Government of Karnataka, engaged in trading in agricultural produce and was an approved channelising agent for Bangalore in respect of rose, onion and niger seeds. The Government sanctioned Rs 10 crores for improvement of infrastructure in order to encourage the far…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bank Note Paper Mill India Pvt Ltd

ITA/690/2017HC Karnataka21 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…CIT vs. Karnal Co- operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (243 ITR 2). An identical issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CITA vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing and Export Corporation Ltd. (377 ITR 496). In that case the State Government Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.690/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & another Vs. M/s Bank Note Paper Mill India Pvt. Ltd. 6/11 Corporation earned interest on deposits temporarily kept out of grants received from the State Government was taxable or not? The facts are…

M/S Bank Note Paper Mill India Private Limited, Mysore vs. The Income Tax Officer Circle-1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 165/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Guruswamy, CIT (D.R)

…case of CIT vs. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (243 ITR 2). An identical issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CITA vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing and Export Corporation Ltd.(377 ITR 496). In that case the State Government Corporation earned interest on deposits temporarily kept out of grants received from the State Government was taxable or not? The facts are that the State Government Corporation earned interest during the construction period on the fixed deposits temporarily made out of State Government grants. The issue before…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Bank Note Paper Mills India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for asst

ITA 1162/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S Bank Note Paper Mill India Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, S.R Complex, No.2, Thavarekere Main Road, S.G Palya, Drc Post, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan – Aaecb3245M Appellant By : Shri B.R Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit Respondent By : Smt. Prathiba, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 7-11-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : -11-2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B.R Sunil Kumar Singh, CITFor Respondent: Smt. Prathiba, Advocate
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH ‘A’ BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/s Bank Note Paper Mill India Pvt. Ltd., 1st Floor, S.R Complex, No.2, Thavarekere Main Road, S.G Palya, DRC Post, Bengaluru. . Respondent PAN – AAECB3245M Appellant by : Shri B.R Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT Respondent by : Smt. Prathiba, Advocate Date of Hearing : 7-11-2017 Date of Pronouncement : -11-2017 O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by Revenue is directed against the…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Bank Note Paper Mill India (P) Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 692/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoincome-Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Bank Note Paper Mill India Pvt. Ltd. I Floor, Sr Complex, No.2, Tavarakere Main Road, Sg Paly, Drc Post, Bengaluru-560029. … Respondent Pan:Aaecb 3245M & Cross Objn.No.177/Bang/2015 (In Ita No.692/Bang/2015) (Assessment Year: 2011-12) (By The Assessee) ***** Assessee By : Shri S.Parthasarathi, Advocate. Revenue By : Smt.Swapna Das, Jcit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Swapna Das, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…case of CIT vs. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (243 ITR 2). An identical issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CITA vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing and Export Corporation Ltd.(377 ITR 496). In that case the State Government Corporation earned interest on deposits temporarily kept out of grants received from the State Government was taxable or not? The facts are that the State Government Corporation earned interest during the construction period on the fixed deposits temporarily made out of State Government grants. The issue before…

CITA v. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing and Export Corporation Ltd. (377 ITR 496) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax