(iii) Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

292 ITR 175High Court2007#5491 most cited

What is (iii) Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

Interest income received from customers on delayed payments for credit sales forms part of the profits and gains of a business and is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT · Section 80IA · interest income · delayed payment · credit sales · business profits · deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 194ASection 194HSection 2(28A)Section 201(1)Section 201(1A)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 2(28a)section 133a(2a)section 80hsection 194hsection 80hhcinterest under section 201(1a)section 80hhinterest on securitiessection 194asection 201(1a)deduction u/s 80iasection 57

Judgments citing (iii) Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Tirunelveli vs. Vvd and Sons Private Limited, Tuticorin

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

ITA 1792/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1792/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Tirunelveli. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Vvd & Sons Private Vs. Limited, No.182, Palayamkottai Road, Tuticorin – 628 003. Pan: Aaacv 8438J (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri Shiva Srinivas, Addl.Cit Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2024 आदेश /O R Der Per S.R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai 19, Dated 30.04.2024 & Pertains To

Section 4Section 801Section 801ASection 80I

…] 231 CTR 348 (Delhi) iv)CIT vs. Poddar Pigments Limited, ITA 347/2010 (Delhi) v) CIT vs. Advance Detergents Ltd., [2010] 33 DTR 185 (Delhi) vi) Phatela Cotgin Industries (P.) Ltd., vs. CIT, [2008] 303 ITR 411 (P&H) vii) Tata Sponge Iron Ltd., vs. CIT, [2007] 292 ITR 175 viii) CIT vs. Flender Macneill Gears Ltd., [1984] 41 CTR (Cal) 60 ix)CIT vs. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd., [2006] 205 CTR 293 (Mad) 4.1 Further, the assessee also argued that the text of 80IA of the Act, states that the assessee is eligible for deduction of an amount equal to 100% of the profit and gain derived from such business. Therefore, t…

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2633/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 194ASection 194HSection 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 222Section 271C

…CTR 348 (Delhi); 4. CIT v. Advance Detergents Ltd. [2010] 228 CTR 356 (Delhi); 5. Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 / 166 Taxman 9 (Punj. & Har.); ITA. No. 2633/MUM/2024 Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai. 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175/165 Taxman 191 (Ori.). 6. We have carefully perused the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, Nirma Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein observation in respect of the issue involved is as under :- "33. However, the parties having made elaborate submissions, the matter may be examined from a slightly different angle. When the assessee ente…

Nhdc Limited, Bhopal vs. DCIT - 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, Cross appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes and CO is dismissed being infructuous

ITA 40/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninhdc Limited Dcit, 3(1) F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Shyamla Bhopal Vs. Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 1732G Dcit, 3(1) Nhdc Limited Bhopal F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Vs. Shyamla Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn 1732G

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…e view is expressed by the various other High Courts in the following judgments: (i) Phatela Cotgin Industries (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 (P&H); (ii) CIT v. Flender Macneill Gears Ltd. [1984] 150 ITR 83 (Cal); (iii) Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 (Orissa); and (iv) CIT v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 201 (Mad). 18. There is no reason to depart from the aforesaid view taken consistently by various High Courts, which is in tune with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Liberty India [2009] 317 ITR 218 (SC). We answer this question in favour of the assessee and a…

DCIT 3 (1), Bhopal vs. M/S Nhdc Ltd, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, Cross appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes and CO is dismissed being infructuous

ITA 316/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninhdc Limited Dcit, 3(1) F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Shyamla Bhopal Vs. Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 1732G Dcit, 3(1) Nhdc Limited Bhopal F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Vs. Shyamla Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn 1732G

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…e view is expressed by the various other High Courts in the following judgments: (i) Phatela Cotgin Industries (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 (P&H); (ii) CIT v. Flender Macneill Gears Ltd. [1984] 150 ITR 83 (Cal); (iii) Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 (Orissa); and (iv) CIT v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 201 (Mad). 18. There is no reason to depart from the aforesaid view taken consistently by various High Courts, which is in tune with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Liberty India [2009] 317 ITR 218 (SC). We answer this question in favour of the assessee and a…

DCIT (TDS)(OSD) - 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Wockhardt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2131/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit (Tds) (Osd)-2(3), M/S Wockhardt Ltd., Room No. 310, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Building, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacw 2472 M Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Pranay Gandhi, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Pranay Gandhi, AR
Section 194H

…Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 5. Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 5. Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 / 166 Taxman 9 (Punj. & Har.); / 166 Taxman 9 (Punj. & Har.); 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 / 165 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 / 165 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 / 165 Taxman 191 (Ori.). an 191 (Ori.). 6. We have carefully perused the decision of the Hon'ble 6. We have carefully perused the decision of the Hon'ble 6. We have carefully perused the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Co…

DCIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2314/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vallabh Gokhale, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, D.R
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…3. CIT v. Jackson Engineers Ltd. [2010] 231 CTR 348 (Delhi); 4. CIT v. Advance Detergents Ltd. [2010] 228 CTR 356 (Delhi); 5. Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 / 166 Taxman 9 (Punj. & Har.); 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 / 165 Taxman 191 (Ori.). 6. We have carefully perused the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, Nirma Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein observation in respect of the issue involved is as under:- "33. However, the parties having made elaborate submissions, the matter may be examined from a slightly different angle. When the assessee e…

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3). Mumbai, Mumbai vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

ITA 894/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

….); 3. CIT v. Jackson Engineers Ltd. [2010] 231 CTR 348 (Delhi); 4. CIT v. Advance Detergents Ltd. [2010] 228 CTR 356 (Delhi); 5. Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 / 166 Taxman 9 (Punj. & Har.); 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 / 165 Taxman 191 (Ori.). 6. We have carefully perused the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, Nirma Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein observation in respect of the issue involved is as under :— "33. However, the parties having made elaborate submissions, the matter may be examined from a slightly different angle. When the assessee en…

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai. vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

ITA 893/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

….); 3. CIT v. Jackson Engineers Ltd. [2010] 231 CTR 348 (Delhi); 4. CIT v. Advance Detergents Ltd. [2010] 228 CTR 356 (Delhi); 5. Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 / 166 Taxman 9 (Punj. & Har.); 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 / 165 Taxman 191 (Ori.). 6. We have carefully perused the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, Nirma Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein observation in respect of the issue involved is as under :— "33. However, the parties having made elaborate submissions, the matter may be examined from a slightly different angle. When the assessee en…

DCIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds (c) raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6803/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6803/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit (Tds)-2(3), M/S Wockhardt Ltd. 6Th Floor, Wockhardt Smt. K. G. Mittal बिधम/ Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg. Tower, G Block, Bandra Vs. Room No. 718, 7Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacw2472M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 51/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Wockhardt Ltd. Dcit (Tds)-2(3), 6Th Floor, Wockhardt Smt. K. G. Mittal बिधम/ Tower, G Block, Bandra Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg. Vs. Room No. 718, 7Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 002 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anand Mohan, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Kirit Kamdar, Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.11.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Anand Mohan, DRFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar, AR
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201(1)

…4. CIT v. Advance Detergents Ltd. [2010] 228 CTR 356 (Delhi) 13 I.T.A. No. 6803/Mum/2018 & CO 51/Mum/2020 M/s Wockhardt Ltd. 5. Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 / 166 Taxman 9 (Punj. & Har.) 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 / 165 Taxman 191 (Ori.) 6. We have carefully perused the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, Nirma Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein observation in respect of the issue involved is as under :— "33. However, the parties having made elaborate submissions, the matter may be examined from a slightly different angle. When the assessee e…

ACIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…283 ITR 402 (Guj) (SLP dismissed/rejected): CIT v. Madras Motors Ltd: 257 ITR 60 (Mad): 80HH and 80I iv. CIT v. Rane (Madras) Ltd.: 238 ITR 377 (Mad): 80I v. vi. CIT v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd.: 286 ITR 201 (Mad): 80HH Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT: 292 ITR 175 (Orissa): 80HH vii. viii. JCIT v. Sidheshwari Paper Udyog Ltd.: 94 ITD 187 (Del. Trib.) (TM): 80IA 145 taxman 22 ix. Joyco India P. Ltd. v. ITO: [2009] 122 TTJ 940 (Del. Trib.): 80IA x. G. S. C. Toughened Glass P. Ltd.: 13 SOT 668 (Del. Trib.) Kirloskar Electrodyne Ltd. v. DCIT: 87 ITD 264 (Pune Trib.) xi. xii. Asst. CIT v. Biotech Medicals…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…283 ITR 402 (Guj) (SLP dismissed/rejected): CIT v. Madras Motors Ltd: 257 ITR 60 (Mad): 80HH and 80I iv. CIT v. Rane (Madras) Ltd.: 238 ITR 377 (Mad): 80I v. vi. CIT v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd.: 286 ITR 201 (Mad): 80HH Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT: 292 ITR 175 (Orissa): 80HH vii. viii. JCIT v. Sidheshwari Paper Udyog Ltd.: 94 ITD 187 (Del. Trib.) (TM): 80IA 145 taxman 22 ix. Joyco India P. Ltd. v. ITO: [2009] 122 TTJ 940 (Del. Trib.): 80IA x. G. S. C. Toughened Glass P. Ltd.: 13 SOT 668 (Del. Trib.) Kirloskar Electrodyne Ltd. v. DCIT: 87 ITD 264 (Pune Trib.) xi. xii. Asst. CIT v. Biotech Medicals…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…283 ITR 402 (Guj) (SLP dismissed/rejected): CIT v. Madras Motors Ltd: 257 ITR 60 (Mad): 80HH and 80I iv. CIT v. Rane (Madras) Ltd.: 238 ITR 377 (Mad): 80I v. vi. CIT v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd.: 286 ITR 201 (Mad): 80HH Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT: 292 ITR 175 (Orissa): 80HH vii. viii. JCIT v. Sidheshwari Paper Udyog Ltd.: 94 ITD 187 (Del. Trib.) (TM): 80IA 145 taxman 22 ix. Joyco India P. Ltd. v. ITO: [2009] 122 TTJ 940 (Del. Trib.): 80IA x. G. S. C. Toughened Glass P. Ltd.: 13 SOT 668 (Del. Trib.) Kirloskar Electrodyne Ltd. v. DCIT: 87 ITD 264 (Pune Trib.) xi. xii. Asst. CIT v. Biotech Medicals…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5529/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain , AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80

…is way of transactions clearly arises from the normal business transactions of the assessee and the resultant interest constitutes business income. 14. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Tata Sponge Iron Ltd vs CIT, 292 ITR 175 for the principle that interest earned by the assessee from its customers for delayed payment and for bills discounting, such interest income has been a direct and immediate nexus with the industrial undertaking of the assessee and, therefore, interest earned from customers, for delayed payment and bill discounting, are held to be income “derived…

Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corp. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

ITA 380/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P C ParwalFor Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…ies Ltd. vs. DCIT 283 ITR 402 (Guj) - Phatela Cotgin Industries (P) ltd. vs. CIT 303 ITR 411 (P&H) - CIT v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd. 286 ITR 201 (Mad) - CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. 354 ITR 630 (Guj.) - Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 292 ITR 175 (Ori) 4.7 The AO has not allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA on other income. The other income is mainly in respect of the site plan charges, lease Rajasthan State Industries Development & Investment Corp. Ltd. agreement form, road cutting charges, penalty recovered from contractor etc. It may be noted that assessee vide its letter availabl…

Agarwal Metals & Alloys, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 14(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8953/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 143(2)Section 234CSection 234DSection 69CSection 80I

…e interest income should be netted off against the interest expenditure and accordingly the deduciton u/s 80IB should be worked out. In support of this proposition, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the following case law:- a. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd Vs. CIT (2007)(292 ITR 175)(Ori) b. ACG Associated Capsultes P Ltd Vs. CIT (2012)(343 ITR 89)(SC) c. CIT Vs. Taj International Jewellers (ITA No.985 of 2010)(Delhi) 22. We heard the parties on this issue. The netting off sought by the assessee could be given, if it is shown that there is nexus between the borrowed funds and loans given/deposits made. Since this factual as…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Poddar Pigments Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/347/2010HC Delhi07 Apr 2010

Bench: The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Which, By The Impugned Order, Has Dismissed The Said Appeal. The Tribunal Came To The Conclusion That The Bad Debts Issue Had Already Been Considered In The Original Proceedings Under Section 143(3) And, Therefore, The Same Could Not Be Reopened In Reassessment Proceedings. We Find No Infirmity In The View Taken By The Tribunal On This Aspect Of The Matter.

For Appellant: Ms Sonia Mathur with Mr Sumit Kumar SinghFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 80

…ITA No.347/10 Page No.1 of 4 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 07.04.2010 + ITA 347/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX … Appellant - versus – M/S PODDAR PIGMENTS LIMITED ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Ms Sonia Mathur with Mr Sumit Kumar Singh For the Respondent : None CORAM:- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not…

C.I.T vs. Jackson Engineers Ltd

Appeal stands disposed of in the

ITA/251/2008HC Delhi23 Dec 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

Section 80I

…lowing judgments :- (i) Phatela Cotgin Industries (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Taxm 303 ITR 411 (P&H) (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Flender Macneil Gears Ltd.,150 ITR 83 (Cal) (iii) Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 292 ITR 175 (Orissa) (iv) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd., 286 ITR 201 (Mad) 16. There is no reason to depart from the aforesaid view taken consistently by various High Courts, which is in tune with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Liberty India (supra). We answer this question in favour of the assesse…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jackson Engineers Ltd

Appeal stands disposed of in the

ITA-251/2008HC Delhi23 Dec 2009
Section 80I

…lowing judgments :- (i) Phatela Cotgin Industries (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Taxm 303 ITR 411 (P&H) (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Flender Macneil Gears Ltd.,150 ITR 83 (Cal) (iii) Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 292 ITR 175 (Orissa) (iv) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd., 286 ITR 201 (Mad) 16. There is no reason to depart from the aforesaid view taken consistently by various High Courts, which is in tune with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Liberty India (supra). We answer this question in favour of the assesse…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bharat Rasayan Limited

ITA - 765 / 2007HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 80

…following judgments:- - (i) Phatela Cotgin Industries (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 303 ITR 411 (P&H) - (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Flender Macneil Gears Ltd., 150 ITR 83 (Cal) - (iii) Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 292 ITR 175 (Orissa) - (iv) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd., 286 ITR 201 (Mad) - 16. There is no reason to depart from the aforesaid view taken consistently by various High Courts, which is in tune with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in *Liberty India* (supra). We answer this question in favour of the assessee an…

C.I.T vs. Bharat Rasayan Ltd

ITA - 816 / 2007HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 80

…ollowing judgments:- - (i) Phatela Cotgin Industries (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 303 ITR 411 (P&H) - (ii) . Commissioner of Income Tax v. Flender Macneil Gears Ltd., 150 ITR 83 (Cal) - (iii) Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 292 ITR 175 (Orissa) - (iv) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd., 286 ITR 201 (Mad) - 16. There is no reason to depart from the aforesaid view taken consistently by various High Courts, which is in tune with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in *Liberty India* (supra). We answer this question in favour of the assessee an…