Department. 19. In CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd.

13 SCC 548Reported decision2004#10378 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(29BA)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 32ACSection 80-ISection 80-IASection 80-IB

Issues it is cited on

ready for usesection 32asection 115osection 32(1)(iia)section 10(2)additional depreciationsection 80hhassessment order erroneoussection 10(34)computer softwareput to usesection 32(1)

Judgments citing Department. 19. In CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd.

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI vs. IDEMITSU LUBE INDIA P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7950/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Addl.Cit, Vs M/S. Idemitsu Lube Pvt.Ltd., Special Range-04, 603, 6Th Floor, Eros New Delhi Corporate Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aabci5684A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32A

…or production” in terms of Section 80-IA. 18. In this connection, our view is also fortified by the following judgments of this Court which have been fairly pointed out to us by learned counsel appearing for the Department. 19. In CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. [(2004) 13 SCC 548 : (2004) 271 ITR 331], the meaning of the word “production” came up for consideration. The question which came before this Court was whether ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of machinery used in mining activity ignoring the fact that the assessee wa…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ASSAM AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

ITA 319/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 154Section 250Section 80I

…in terms of section 80-IA. In this connection, our view is also fortified by the following judgments of this court which have been fairly pointed out to us by learned counsel appearing for the Department. In the case of CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. reported in [2004] 13 SCC 548; [2004] 271 ITR 331 (SC), the meaning of the word 'production' came up for consideration. The question which came before this court was whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of machinery used in mining activity ignorin…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ASSAM AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

ITA 318/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 154Section 250Section 80I

…in terms of section 80-IA. In this connection, our view is also fortified by the following judgments of this court which have been fairly pointed out to us by learned counsel appearing for the Department. In the case of CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. reported in [2004] 13 SCC 548; [2004] 271 ITR 331 (SC), the meaning of the word 'production' came up for consideration. The question which came before this court was whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of machinery used in mining activity ignorin…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ASSAM AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

ITA 240/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 154Section 250Section 80I

…in terms of section 80-IA. In this connection, our view is also fortified by the following judgments of this court which have been fairly pointed out to us by learned counsel appearing for the Department. In the case of CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. reported in [2004] 13 SCC 548; [2004] 271 ITR 331 (SC), the meaning of the word 'production' came up for consideration. The question which came before this court was whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of machinery used in mining activity ignorin…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ASSAM AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

ITA 239/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 154Section 250Section 80I

…in terms of section 80-IA. In this connection, our view is also fortified by the following judgments of this court which have been fairly pointed out to us by learned counsel appearing for the Department. In the case of CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. reported in [2004] 13 SCC 548; [2004] 271 ITR 331 (SC), the meaning of the word 'production' came up for consideration. The question which came before this court was whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of machinery used in mining activity ignorin…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ASSAM AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

ITA 238/GTY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 154Section 250Section 80I

…in terms of section 80-IA. In this connection, our view is also fortified by the following judgments of this court which have been fairly pointed out to us by learned counsel appearing for the Department. In the case of CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. reported in [2004] 13 SCC 548; [2004] 271 ITR 331 (SC), the meaning of the word 'production' came up for consideration. The question which came before this court was whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of machinery used in mining activity ignorin…

PR. CIT CIRCLE-2, MUMBAI vs. BHARAT PRTROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1601/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bharat Petroleum बिधम/ Pcit, Circle-2 Corporation Ltd. Room No.344, Aayakar Vs. Taxation Section, Bhavan, M. K. Road, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan 1, Mumbai-400020. 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb2902M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 21.02.2020 For Assessment Year [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”] 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistryFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 32A

…or production” in terms of Section 80-IA. 18. In this connection, our view is also fortified by the following judgments of this Court which have been fairly pointed out to us by learned counsel appearing for the Department. 19. In CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. [(2004) 13 SCC 548 : (2004) 271 ITR 331 ], the meaning of the word “production” came up for consideration. The question which came before this Court was whether ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of machinery used in mining activity ignoring the fact that the assessee w…

BHARAT PRTROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT CIRCLE-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1602/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

…or production” in terms of Section 80-IA. 18. In this connection, our view is also fortified by the following judgments of this Court which have been fairly pointed out to us by learned counsel appearing for the Department. 19. In CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. [(2004) 13 SCC 548 : (2004) 271 ITR 331 ], the meaning of the word “production” came up for consideration. The question which came before this Court was whether ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of machinery used in mining activity ignoring the fact that the assessee w…

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT, CIRCLR-2,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1600/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

…or production” in terms of Section 80-IA. 18. In this connection, our view is also fortified by the following judgments of this Court which have been fairly pointed out to us by learned counsel appearing for the Department. 19. In CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. [(2004) 13 SCC 548 : (2004) 271 ITR 331 ], the meaning of the word “production” came up for consideration. The question which came before this Court was whether ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of machinery used in mining activity ignoring the fact that the assessee w…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD

C.A. No.-009295-009295 - 2017Supreme Court03 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 80Section 80H

…ection 80-IA. 18. In this connection, our view is also fortified by the following judgments of this Court which have been fairly pointed out to us by learned counsel appearing for the Department. 19. In CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. [(2004) 13 SCC 548 : (2004) 271 ITR 331], the meaning of the word “production” came up for consideration. The question which came before this Court was whether ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of machinery used in mining activity ignoring the fact that the assessee wa…