India Cements Ltd. v. CIT

60 ITR 52Supreme Court of India1966#350 most cited

What is India Cements Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenses incurred for obtaining a loan for the purpose of the assessee's business, such as debenture discount, bank guarantee charges, and stamp duty, are considered revenue expenditure. These liabilities, though potentially spread over time, are deductible as revenue expenses.

247

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

India Cements Ltd. v. CIT · 60 ITR 52 · Section 37(1) · revenue expenditure · expenses for obtaining loan · cost of raising finance · debenture discount · bank guarantee charges · stamp duty on loan · commercial expediency

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 37(1)Section 37Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 115JBSection 14ASection 40A(2)(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 35dsection 135commercial expediencydisallowance of interest expendituresection 139(5)section 40a(2)(b)revenue expendituresection 92bsection 36(1)(iii)section 244acorporate guaranteeenduring benefit

Judgments citing India Cements Ltd. v. CIT

Tata Moters Limited (Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Range.-2(3), Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 3336/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Pawan Singhtata Motors Limited. Dcit -2(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Street, Hutatma Chowk, Vs. Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Tata Motors Limited. Acit -2(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit -2(3) Tata Motors Limited. R. No. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Mumbai. Vs. Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Arati Vissanji (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2018

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

…. Secure Meters Ltd. (321 ITR 611) and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Tata SSL Ltd. in ITA No. 449 of 2011 dated 05.11.2012. The ld. AR of the assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of India Cements Ltd. Vs CIT 60 ITR 52, CIT Vs ITC Hotel Ltd. 334 ITR 109 (Kar), CIT Vs Havells India Ltd. 352 ITR 376 (Del.), CIT Vs Instrumentation Ltd. (37 taxmann.com 271 (Raj.) and CIT Vs Sukhjit Starch & Chemicals Ltd. 326 ITR 29 (P & H). The ld. DR for the Revenue fairly conceded that this ground of appeal is also covered in favour of assessee. 10. We have considered the sub…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 888/BANG/2017[2012 - 13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2018

Bench: Shri. Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. A. C. Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Harinder Kumar, CIT-DR-III
Section 14A

…he P & L account. It was also mentioned that the expenditure was not capital in nature and is therefore required to be allowed as revenue. For this purpose reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of India Cements v. CIT [60 ITR 52] and the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. ITC Hotels 334ITR 109. 08. The Ld. DR relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Brooke Bond India Ltd v. CIT [(1997) 225 ITR 798]. 09. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In our view, the issue is squarely covered in favour of th…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Indusind Media & Communicaton Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 772/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.772/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. बनाम/ 16(1) In Centre, 49/50,Midc,12Th Road Room No.439, Aaykar Bhavvan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-1198-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1167/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- बनाम/ In Centre, 49/50,Midc,12Th Road 16(1) Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Room No.439, Aaykar Bhavvan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-1198-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Mihir Nanavdekar,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

…ITA Nos.772 &1167/Mum/2016 Indusind Media & Communication Limited Assessment Year 2011-12 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “आई” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.772/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. बनाम/ 16(1) In centre, 49/50,MIDC,12th Road Room No.439, Aaykar Bhavvan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआ…

Indusind Media & Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(1), Mumbai

ITA 1167/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.772/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. बनाम/ 16(1) In Centre, 49/50,Midc,12Th Road Room No.439, Aaykar Bhavvan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-1198-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1167/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- बनाम/ In Centre, 49/50,Midc,12Th Road 16(1) Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Room No.439, Aaykar Bhavvan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-1198-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Mihir Nanavdekar,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

…ITA Nos.772 &1167/Mum/2016 Indusind Media & Communication Limited Assessment Year 2011-12 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “आई” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.772/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. बनाम/ 16(1) In centre, 49/50,MIDC,12th Road Room No.439, Aaykar Bhavvan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआ…

Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6750/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse-CIT-DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…AO therefore calculated the expenses pertaining to the year under consideration and disallowed the remaining expenses. 36. We find that this issue is also covered with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’ in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52, wherein the Supreme Court held that the expenditure in raising loans or issuing debentures would be revenue in nature, irrespective of whether the borrowal is a long term or short term one. It was held that the act of borrowing money was incidental to the carrying on of business, the loan obtained was not an asset or an advantage of enduring natur…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3692/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Dcit, Circle -3(1), New Delhi M/S. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd., Ispat Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Aabcb8976G (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Dcit, Circle -3(1), New Delhi Ltd., 4Th Floor, Ispat Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Aabcb8976G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. & Sh. Anil Sharma, Agm Respondent By Sh. Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

…as under: “5.1.4. In the normal course, the interest expenses on expansion of an existing business was allowable as Revenue expenditure in terms of Section 36(1) of the Act & various judgment notable among them being that of India Cements Ltd. Vs. CIT(1966) 60 ITR 52(SC); CIT Vs. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 715 (Guj.) & CIT Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 395 (Bom.), according to which, the whole of the interest, was a ‘Revenue’ expense. However, on account of the amendment brought in section 36(1)(iii), interest incurred in respect of an asset not put to use is not a Revenue expenditure…

Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3405/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Dcit, Circle -3(1), New Delhi M/S. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd., Ispat Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Aabcb8976G (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Dcit, Circle -3(1), New Delhi Ltd., 4Th Floor, Ispat Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Aabcb8976G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. & Sh. Anil Sharma, Agm Respondent By Sh. Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

…as under: “5.1.4. In the normal course, the interest expenses on expansion of an existing business was allowable as Revenue expenditure in terms of Section 36(1) of the Act & various judgment notable among them being that of India Cements Ltd. Vs. CIT(1966) 60 ITR 52(SC); CIT Vs. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 715 (Guj.) & CIT Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 395 (Bom.), according to which, the whole of the interest, was a ‘Revenue’ expense. However, on account of the amendment brought in section 36(1)(iii), interest incurred in respect of an asset not put to use is not a Revenue expenditure…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Suman Jain, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1776/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Before K.N. Chary

For Respondent: Sh. S.P. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 36

…16 AY 2011-12 14.01.2016 whereby bank limit of Rs. 5.5 Crores was sanctioned at lower bank interest rate lying at page 1 to 17 of the additional evidence. 16. Hon’ble Apex Court has decided the identical issue in the judgment cited as Indian Cements Ltd. vs. 60 ITR 52 (SC) wherein it has been held that when the act of borrowing money was incidental to carrying on the business .the loan obtained was not an asset or an advantage of enduring nature, the expenditure was made for securing the use of money for a certain period and it was irrelevant to consider the object with which the loan was taken. 17. In the insta…

The ITO, Ward-6(2), Ahmedabad vs. Smt. Mrudulaben Harshadbhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3532/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…in section 36(i)(iii) to allowance of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed which has been utilised for purchase of a capital asset. The position of law in this regard was explained by the Supreme Court in the cases of India Cements Ltd. Vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 and State of Madras Vs. G.J. Coelhi (1964) 53 ITR 186." (-11-) 9. Considering these judgments and the test that the object of the loan is irrelevant, the interest which was disallowed to the extent of investment will have to be allowed as held by the Tribunal. 10. In so far as question (d) is concerned, as noted the A.O. and C.I.T. (A) proceeded on…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1697/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…premium at ₹ 12.09 crores had been done. 12.1 The bonds issued are in the nature of borrowing for the purpose of business and the expenditure incurred for the said borrowing is revenue expenditure as held by the Apex Court in the case of ‘India Cements Ltd’ (60 ITR 52) and hence, the interest payable on the bonds by the name ‘premium’ is also allowable as business expenditure. With this, in view, premium payable on the bonds, the assessee can claim premium payable on a pro rata basis as held by the Apex Court in the case of ‘Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (225 ITR 802). Accordingly, the assessee c…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1696/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…premium at ₹ 12.09 crores had been done. 12.1 The bonds issued are in the nature of borrowing for the purpose of business and the expenditure incurred for the said borrowing is revenue expenditure as held by the Apex Court in the case of ‘India Cements Ltd’ (60 ITR 52) and hence, the interest payable on the bonds by the name ‘premium’ is also allowable as business expenditure. With this, in view, premium payable on the bonds, the assessee can claim premium payable on a pro rata basis as held by the Apex Court in the case of ‘Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (225 ITR 802). Accordingly, the assessee c…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1695/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…premium at ₹ 12.09 crores had been done. 12.1 The bonds issued are in the nature of borrowing for the purpose of business and the expenditure incurred for the said borrowing is revenue expenditure as held by the Apex Court in the case of ‘India Cements Ltd’ (60 ITR 52) and hence, the interest payable on the bonds by the name ‘premium’ is also allowable as business expenditure. With this, in view, premium payable on the bonds, the assessee can claim premium payable on a pro rata basis as held by the Apex Court in the case of ‘Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (225 ITR 802). Accordingly, the assessee c…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the seven appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4723/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. O.P. Kant & Sh. Kuldip Singhsl. No.

Section 143(3)

…owing upfront fees. 14.1 The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that loan arrangement fee was paid for the purpose of arranging loans for various business exigencies and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Cements Vs. CIT, 60 ITR 52, the expenditure incurred for raising a loan is revenue expenditure, irrespective of the purpose or motive for which loan is obtained. The Assessing Officer, however, was of the view, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Vs. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 34 (SC) that if expenditure is made for bringing int…

M/S.Shanders Property Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

ITA 531/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Shivarama Iyer, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)-2, Bengaluru
Section 37

…s issued debentures for which Rs. 44 lakhs was claimed as deduction and it was considered that this aspect is settled by several decisions of various High Courts and it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Cements Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1966] 60 ITR 52, that a loan is not an asset or advance of enduring nature and the purpose of taking loan is totally an irrelevant consideration and hence the deduction on account of interest on loans cannot be denied. Then, the learned Tribunal also proceeded to rely upon another judgment of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Financial Corp…

DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai vs. Raj Girish Karia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1279/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Shenoy, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…rrowed for the purpose of business is a permissible deduction. Section 36(1)(iii) does not make any distinction between interest paid on capital utilised in acquiring a capital asset or a revenue asset. It has been held so in India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC). Nothing has been brought on record by the A.O. to establish that the said plot has been purchased by the assessee with the intention of resale or for using it for any non- business purpose. Therefore, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the 4th ground of appeal. 7. We now come to the last ground of appeal of the Revenue. Du…

Raj Girish Karia, Mumbai vs. JCIT 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1037/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Shenoy, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…rrowed for the purpose of business is a permissible deduction. Section 36(1)(iii) does not make any distinction between interest paid on capital utilised in acquiring a capital asset or a revenue asset. It has been held so in India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC). Nothing has been brought on record by the A.O. to establish that the said plot has been purchased by the assessee with the intention of resale or for using it for any non- business purpose. Therefore, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the 4th ground of appeal. 7. We now come to the last ground of appeal of the Revenue. Du…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Tuticorin

ITA 1665/CHNY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी.जॉज", लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Income Tax, v. 1, Sai Flats, 55, Pillaiyar Koil St., Compan…

M/S. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Madurai vs. Additional CIT, Chennai

ITA 1386/CHNY/2010[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी.जॉज", लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Income Tax, v. 1, Sai Flats, 55, Pillaiyar Koil St., Compan…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Tuticorin

ITA 1020/CHNY/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी.जॉज", लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Income Tax, v. 1, Sai Flats, 55, Pillaiyar Koil St., Compan…

M/S Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Tuticorin vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 86/CHNY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी.जॉज", लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Income Tax, v. 1, Sai Flats, 55, Pillaiyar Koil St., Compan…