Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. DCIT

100 ITR (Trib) 74Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2022#14568 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2023.

Also reported as

92 ITD 333

Issues it is cited on

section 43(1)section 92ca(1)deduction under section 80iaadditional depreciationdeduction u/s 80iasection 41(1)section 41section 80iabook profitssection 80isection 2(24)section 115j

Judgments citing Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Chennai Continer Terminal P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 894/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 92C

…ed as “capital receipt” or “revenue receipt” has been considered by the Coordinate Page No. 7 ITA NOs. 893, 894, 1118 & 1119/MUM/2013 Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Container Corporation of India Ltd., v. DCIT [2022] 100 ITR (Trib) 74 (Delhi) in which Coordinate Bench has held that amount of benefit under the SFIS is a capital receipt and goes to reduce cost of capital asset purchased and he brought to our notice Para Nos. 8 to 15. Copy of the order is placed on record. 13. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue contended that the said receipt was of revenue in n…

DCIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Chennai Continer Terminal P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 893/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 92C

…ed as “capital receipt” or “revenue receipt” has been considered by the Coordinate Page No. 7 ITA NOs. 893, 894, 1118 & 1119/MUM/2013 Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Container Corporation of India Ltd., v. DCIT [2022] 100 ITR (Trib) 74 (Delhi) in which Coordinate Bench has held that amount of benefit under the SFIS is a capital receipt and goes to reduce cost of capital asset purchased and he brought to our notice Para Nos. 8 to 15. Copy of the order is placed on record. 13. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue contended that the said receipt was of revenue in n…

Chennai Container Terminal P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1119/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 92C

…ed as “capital receipt” or “revenue receipt” has been considered by the Coordinate Page No. 7 ITA NOs. 893, 894, 1118 & 1119/MUM/2013 Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Container Corporation of India Ltd., v. DCIT [2022] 100 ITR (Trib) 74 (Delhi) in which Coordinate Bench has held that amount of benefit under the SFIS is a capital receipt and goes to reduce cost of capital asset purchased and he brought to our notice Para Nos. 8 to 15. Copy of the order is placed on record. 13. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue contended that the said receipt was of revenue in n…

Chennai Container Terminal P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1118/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 92C

…ed as “capital receipt” or “revenue receipt” has been considered by the Coordinate Page No. 7 ITA NOs. 893, 894, 1118 & 1119/MUM/2013 Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Container Corporation of India Ltd., v. DCIT [2022] 100 ITR (Trib) 74 (Delhi) in which Coordinate Bench has held that amount of benefit under the SFIS is a capital receipt and goes to reduce cost of capital asset purchased and he brought to our notice Para Nos. 8 to 15. Copy of the order is placed on record. 13. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue contended that the said receipt was of revenue in n…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5238/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…h relief could not be denied merely because the assessee omitted to claim the same. This view has been upheld in the case of Lustre Tiles Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2007) 108 ITD 35 where reliance has been placed on Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs DCIT (2005) 92 ITD 333 (Delhi) wherein the ITAT, Delhi Bench, after discussing several decisions of the Court including that of Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (1986) 161 ITR 159 (SC) held that the jurisdiction u/s 154 can be assumed if there is a mistake apparent from record. If on the basis of material on record, the assessee is entitled to a relief which has remaine…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5237/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…h relief could not be denied merely because the assessee omitted to claim the same. This view has been upheld in the case of Lustre Tiles Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2007) 108 ITD 35 where reliance has been placed on Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs DCIT (2005) 92 ITD 333 (Delhi) wherein the ITAT, Delhi Bench, after discussing several decisions of the Court including that of Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (1986) 161 ITR 159 (SC) held that the jurisdiction u/s 154 can be assumed if there is a mistake apparent from record. If on the basis of material on record, the assessee is entitled to a relief which has remaine…

Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 4736/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…h relief could not be denied merely because the assessee omitted to claim the same. This view has been upheld in the case of Lustre Tiles Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2007) 108 ITD 35 where reliance has been placed on Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs DCIT (2005) 92 ITD 333 (Delhi) wherein the ITAT, Delhi Bench, after discussing several decisions of the Court including that of Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (1986) 161 ITR 159 (SC) held that the jurisdiction u/s 154 can be assumed if there is a mistake apparent from record. If on the basis of material on record, the assessee is entitled to a relief which has remaine…

Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. DCIT (100 ITR (Trib) 74) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax