What is Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Interest earned from the temporary parking of borrowed funds specifically intended for project development, prior to the commencement of business, constitutes a capital receipt inextricably linked to the project and is not taxable as 'income from other sources'.

How many judgments cite Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO?

112 judgments on BharatTax cite Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO (315 ITR 255), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 56, Section 22, Section 4, Section 80-IC.

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO (315 ITR 255)

Shree Sai Consultants, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2188/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)

…n 251 ITR 329 (SC); Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd vs CIT reported in 96 taxmann.com 167 (Bom) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd vs ITO reported in 315 ITR 255 (Del). 6.5. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the interest income earned on fixed deposits should be treated as capital receipt and to be reduced from the project cost. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the treatment given by the assessee in the inst…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rohtak Panipat Tollway Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1938/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R

Section 271Section 56

…ad to be utilized only for purpose of scheme, it could not be counted as income of assessee and could not be considered as revenue receipts. 5.3 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 181 Taxman 249/315 ITR 255 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court have held as under: "5. In our opinion the Tribunal has misconstrued the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals (supra) and that of Bokaro Steel Ltd. (supra). The test which permeates through the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals (…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. M/S Triumph Realty Pvt. Ltd

In the result we answer the question as framed in favour of the assessee and

ITA/177/2022HC Delhi01 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

…such receipts will go to reduce the cost of its assets. These are receipts of a capital nature and cannot be taxed as income. Subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court in Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, (2009) 315 ITR 255 (Delhi) has held “.......In view of the discussion above, in our opinion the Tribunal misdirected itself in applying the decision of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals (supra) in the facts of the present case. In our opinion on account of the finding of fact returned by the CIT(A) that the funds infused in the assessee by the joint v…

M/S Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 350/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 348, 349 & 350/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited House No.382, Sunder Nagar, Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc4374P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer 3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, Dr

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…operative expenses i.e project cost. In order to support his aforesaid contention the Ld. AR had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of A.Ys.2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Indian Oil Panipat power Consortium Ltd. vs. ITO, (2009) 315 ITR 255 (Delhi). It was submitted by the Ld. AR that involving identical facts the Hon’ble High Court, had observed, that interest earned by the assessee company before them, on the funds which were received in the form of share capital for infusion in the business and were temporarily parked as deposit with a bank, i.e, prior to commencement of its busi…

M/S Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 349/BIL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 348, 349 & 350/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited House No.382, Sunder Nagar, Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc4374P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer 3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, Dr

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…operative expenses i.e project cost. In order to support his aforesaid contention the Ld. AR had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of A.Ys.2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Indian Oil Panipat power Consortium Ltd. vs. ITO, (2009) 315 ITR 255 (Delhi). It was submitted by the Ld. AR that involving identical facts the Hon’ble High Court, had observed, that interest earned by the assessee company before them, on the funds which were received in the form of share capital for infusion in the business and were temporarily parked as deposit with a bank, i.e, prior to commencement of its busi…

M/S Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 348/BIL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 348, 349 & 350/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited House No.382, Sunder Nagar, Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc4374P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer 3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, Dr

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…operative expenses i.e project cost. In order to support his aforesaid contention the Ld. AR had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of A.Ys.2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Indian Oil Panipat power Consortium Ltd. vs. ITO, (2009) 315 ITR 255 (Delhi). It was submitted by the Ld. AR that involving identical facts the Hon’ble High Court, had observed, that interest earned by the assessee company before them, on the funds which were received in the form of share capital for infusion in the business and were temporarily parked as deposit with a bank, i.e, prior to commencement of its busi…

DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Radhikapur (West) Coal Mining (P) Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 12/CTK/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.C.BhadraFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam

Section 56

…cord and the orders of authorities below, we notice P a g e 4 | 7 Assessment Year : 2015-16 that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition after relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. Vs. ITO 315 ITR 255 and also the decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of POSCO-India (P) Ltd. passed in ITA Nos.186, 462&461/CTK/2011, vide order dated 14.02.2013, has recorded the findings as under :- 5. I have considered the matter carefully with reference to the facts and materials on record. I have also gone through the elaborate written subm…

Lhotse Developers and Traders Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy It 12(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 542/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Lhotse Developers Vs. Dcit – 12(3)(2) & Traders Pvt Ltd., Room No. 147B, 1St Hotel Grand Hometel, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Cts No. 406/11, 4Th Mk Road, Mkumbai – Floor, Raheja 400020. Chambers, Linking Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400054. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcl0079N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojary. ARFor Respondent: Shri Mehul B. Jain. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Lhotse Developers Vs. DCIT – 12(3)(2) and Traders Pvt Ltd., Room No. 147B, 1st Hotel Grand Hometel, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, CTS No. 406/11, 4th MK Road, Mkumbai – Floor, Raheja 400020. Chambers, Linking Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400054. PAN/GIR No. : AABCL0079N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Ravindra Poojary. AR Respondent by : Shri Mehul B. Jain. DR Date of Hearing 09.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 17.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE…

M/S. Ganpati Global Private Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward1(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 302/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

…(SC); (iii) CIT vs Karnataka Power Corporation 247 ITR 268 (SC); (iv) BongaigaonRefinary And Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2001] 251 ITR 329 (SC); 6 M/s Ganpati Global (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (v) Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd vs. ITO 315 ITR 255 (Delhi High Court); (vi) CIT vs Jaypee Dsc Ventures Ltd in ITA No. 357/2010 (Delhi High Court);and (vii) PCIT vs Facor Power Ltd (2016) 66 Taxmann.com (Delhi High Court), it has been categorically held that if the income is earned whether by way of interest or in any other manner on the funds which are otherwise inextricably linked to setting up…

M/S H.P.. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., Shimla vs. DCIT, Cricle, Shimla

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in

ITA 789/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.C.Chandrakanta, CIT DR

Section 250(6)

…nd had gone to reduce the cost of construction. They had, therefore, been rightly held as capital receipts and not income of the assessee any independent source. 12(ii) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. V ITO 315 ITR 255 (Delhi) held as under : The assessee-company was incorporated in pursuance of a joint venture entered into between Indian Oil Corporation and M of Japan to set up a power project. In order to effectuate the purpose for which the joint venture was conceived, share capital was contributed by these two corporations which included Rs. 20 crores by wa…

ITO, Ward- 13(1), New Delhi vs. Nabinagar Power Generating Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 4748/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 5Section 56

…ked with the setting up of the capital structure of the assessee - company. They must, therefore, be viewed as capital receipts going to reduce the cost of construction." 4.6 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. vs. 1TO (2009) 315 ITR 255 (Del.) held that where interest on money received as share capital is temporarily placed in fixed deposit awaiting acquisition of land, a claim that such interest is a capital receipt entitled to be set off against pre-operative expenses, is admissible, as the funds received by the assessee company by the joint venture partners are "inextricably…

Hitech Automotive Systems (India) Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Cir 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed byassessee is treated as

ITA 610/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. G.Chandrababu, Addl CIT

Section 234B

…d (supra), even though assessee has cited subsequent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 315 and decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. Vs. ITO 315 ITR 255(Del), where courts after considering decision of M/s. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd (supra), held that if funds kept in fixed deposits is having inextricable link with project, then interest earned on short term deposits should be reduced from work in progress, but cannot be assessed under the head income from other sources. A…

M/S Jaypee Powergrid Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 239/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Jaypee Powergrid Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 63, Ja House, Basant Lok, Vasant Ward-4(1), Vihar, New Delhi-110057 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj8054F Assessee By : Sh. Vinod Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr. DR

…ourt in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. (supra), after considering the decisions in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) and Bokaro Steel Ltd. (supra) at length, held at pages 258, 259 and 260 of report, i.e., 315 ITR 255, as under:- 5. In our opinion the Tribunal has misconstrued the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals [1997] 227 ITR 172 and that of Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315. The test which permeates through the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals [1997] 227 ITR 172 is that if fu…

Sugam Vanijya Holdings P.Ltd, Bengluru vs. DCIT, Circle-24(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9502/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms Suchitra Kamblesugam Vanijya Holdings Vs Dcit Private Limited Circle-24(2) Vr Bengaluru, No. 11B, C.R.Building, Survey No. 40/9, New Delhi-110002 Dyvasandra Industrial Area 2Nd Stage, Kr Puram Hobli, Bengaluru- 560048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. Harpreet Ajmani, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Anupham Kant Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2020

Section 143Section 144CSection 32Section 37Section 56Section 57

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I(2) ’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER SUGAM VANIJYA HOLDINGS Vs DCIT PRIVATE LIMITED Circle-24(2) VR BENGALURU, No. 11B, C.R.BUILDING, SURVEY No. 40/9, New Delhi-110002 DYVASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA 2nd Stage, KR PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU- 560048 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. Harpreet Ajmani, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Anupham Kant Garg, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 25.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 23.12.2020 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee…

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

…ants of the scheme for which the grant is originally released. The learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn's case (supra), Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 315 ITR 255/181 Taxman 249 (Delhi), CIT v. Karnataka Power Corpn. [2001] 247 ITR 268/[2000] 112 Taxman 629 (SC), CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315/102 Taxman 94 (SC) to contend that the grant amount received from the Government of Karnataka, temporarily kept in fixed deposits till the utilization period has to be treated as the amount capitalized a…

M/S. Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 385/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.384&385/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Vs. Ito Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.7622/4706, Press Chhaka Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751005 Pan No. : Aahca 6638 E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2019, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Is Illegal, Arbitrary Contrary To Evidence On Record & Without Application Of Mind & For That Matter The Said Order Is Liable To Be Quashed And/Or Annulled. 2. That On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Treating Interest On Fdr & Flexi Deposit Amounting To Rs. 1,08,02,969/- As Revenue Receipt & Made Addition Although The Said Interest Is Inextricably Linked To The Project & Is Purely A Capital Receipt & Hence The Aforesaid Addition Is Liable To Be Deleted. 3. That The Ld. Ao Has Erred Both In Law & Facts By Treating Capital Receipt As Revenue 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or To Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 6. For These & Among Other Grounds To Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, Adequate Relief As May Be Deemed Fit Be Granted In The Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

Section 115J

…Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. M/s Radhikapur (West) Coal and Mining Pvt. Ltd., I.T.A. Nos.396/397CTK/2018, dated 21.10.2019. Wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal, after relying on the order of Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. 315 ITR 255, held that Interest earned on funds primarily brought for infusion in the business activity cannot be termed as income from other sources. 2. Further, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court on a similar issue in the case of PCIT v. M/s Banknote Paper Mill India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 690/2017 held that this issue is ex facie covered by the decision of the ju…

M/S. Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 384/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.384&385/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Vs. Ito Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.7622/4706, Press Chhaka Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751005 Pan No. : Aahca 6638 E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2019, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Is Illegal, Arbitrary Contrary To Evidence On Record & Without Application Of Mind & For That Matter The Said Order Is Liable To Be Quashed And/Or Annulled. 2. That On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Treating Interest On Fdr & Flexi Deposit Amounting To Rs. 1,08,02,969/- As Revenue Receipt & Made Addition Although The Said Interest Is Inextricably Linked To The Project & Is Purely A Capital Receipt & Hence The Aforesaid Addition Is Liable To Be Deleted. 3. That The Ld. Ao Has Erred Both In Law & Facts By Treating Capital Receipt As Revenue 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or To Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 6. For These & Among Other Grounds To Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, Adequate Relief As May Be Deemed Fit Be Granted In The Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

Section 115J

…Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. M/s Radhikapur (West) Coal and Mining Pvt. Ltd., I.T.A. Nos.396/397CTK/2018, dated 21.10.2019. Wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal, after relying on the order of Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. 315 ITR 255, held that Interest earned on funds primarily brought for infusion in the business activity cannot be termed as income from other sources. 2. Further, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court on a similar issue in the case of PCIT v. M/s Banknote Paper Mill India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 690/2017 held that this issue is ex facie covered by the decision of the ju…

ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Kakinada Sez Private Limited, R.R.Dist

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1012/HYD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year:2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Kakinada Sez Pvt. Ward-2(1), Ltd., Hyderabad. Shamshabad. Pan: Aacck 5670 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue By: Shri Pathlavat Peerya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavat Peerya, DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

…le-5 of the Balance Sheet as Pre-operative Expenses pending allocation. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision in the cases, CIT vs. Bokaro Steels Limited reported in 236 ITR 315 (SC), Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Limited vs. ITO reported in 315 ITR 255 (Delhi), ITAT decision in the case of M/s. Tirumala Hydel Power Projects Ltd in ITA No.640V/2004, Continental Construction Ltd vs. CIT (1992) 195 ITR 81/60 Taxman (SC), H.K. (Investment) Co. (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1995) 211 ITR 511 (Guj.), India Cement Ltd vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC), CIT vs. Sri Ram Honda Power Equipment reported in 289 ITR 501 (De…

M/S. Haridaspur Paradip Railway Company Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle- 1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 383/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.383/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Haridaspur Paradip Railway Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Company Limited, Bhubaneswar J/7, Pal Heights, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aabch 9319 R (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2019, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Is Illegal, Arbitrary Contrary To Evidence On Record & Without Application Of Mind & For That Matter The Said Order Is Liable To Be Quashed And/Or Annulled. 2. That On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Treating Interest On Fdr & Flexi Deposit Amounting To Rs.3,27,79,005/- As Revenue Receipt & Made Addition Although The Said Interest Is Inextricably Linked To The Project & Is Purely A Capital Receipt & Hence The Aforesaid Addition Is Liable To Be Deleted. 3. That The Ld. Ao Has Erred Both In Law & Facts By Treating Capital Receipt As Revenue. 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or To Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 6. For These & Among Other Grounds To Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, Adequate Relief As May Be Deemed Fit Be Granted In The Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

Section 115J

…bunal in the case of DCIT v. M/s Radhikapur (West) Coal and Mining 3 Pvt. Ltd., I.T.A. Nos.396/397CTK/2018, dated 21.10.2019. Wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal, after relying on the order of Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. 315 ITR 255, held that interest earned on funds primarily brought for infusion in the business activity could not be termed as income from other sources. • Further, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court on a similar issue in the case of PCIT v. M/s Banknote Paper Mill India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 690/2017 held that this issue is ex facie covered by the decision of the…

Btw-Atlanta Transformers India Pvt. Ltd., Bharuch vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1642/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr. D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

…r has not adjudicated upon the nature of interest income, therefore, he held that alternative ground was not arised from the order of assessment. The ld. CIT(A) has also stated that the decision of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium ltd. and Adani Power Ltd. 315 ITR 255 referred by the assessee was distinguishable from the facts in the case of the assessee as whole amount of share capital was not invested in fixed deposit in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the alternative ground of appeal of the assessee. 5. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. c…

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO

What is Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO

Shree Sai Consultants, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(4), Mumbai

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rohtak Panipat Tollway Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. M/S Triumph Realty Pvt. Ltd

M/S Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur (Cg)

M/S Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur (Cg)

M/S Cmdc Icpl Coal Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3(1), Raipur (Cg)

DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Radhikapur (West) Coal Mining (P) Limited, Bhubaneswar

Lhotse Developers and Traders Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy It 12(3)(2), Mumbai

M/S. Ganpati Global Private Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward1(4), Jaipur

M/S H.P.. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., Shimla vs. DCIT, Cricle, Shimla

ITO, Ward- 13(1), New Delhi vs. Nabinagar Power Generating Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

Hitech Automotive Systems (India) Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Cir 2(2), Chennai

M/S Jaypee Powergrid Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Sugam Vanijya Holdings P.Ltd, Bengluru vs. DCIT, Circle-24(2), New Delhi

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

M/S. Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Bhubaneswar

M/S. Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Bhubaneswar

ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Kakinada Sez Private Limited, R.R.Dist

M/S. Haridaspur Paradip Railway Company Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle- 1(1), Bhubaneswar

Btw-Atlanta Transformers India Pvt. Ltd., Bharuch vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara