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 255High Court2009#954 most cited

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'.

112

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO · 315 ITR 255 · interest income · temporary parking of funds · borrowed funds · project development · pre-commencement of business · capital receipt · income from other sources · Section 56 · Section 4

Also reported as

181 Taxmann 249

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 56 Section 22 Section 4 Section 80-IC Section 10(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act Section 115BBE

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 293 section 40a(i)section 10(5)section 44c section 32a section 74 section 73 section 42 section 32(1)(iia)initial assessment year section 72 section 22

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

Chandraleela Power Energy Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 313/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke M/S. Chandraleela Power Energy Pvt.Ltd The Ito Vs. G-51, Sitapura Industrial Area Ward- 6(3) Tonk Road,Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aadcc 9647 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respo Ndent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Paul, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/03/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 09-01-2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Sustaining Action Of The Ao Of Not Treating Rs. 30,19,569/- Being Cost On Civil Engineering Work Carried Out For Laying Foundation Of Solar Power Panels & Proportionate Interest Thereon, As Cost Of Solar Power Plant & Thereby Curtailing

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, JCIT-DR

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ‘B’, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k Before : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, JM & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 313/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke M/s. Chandraleela Power Energy Pvt.Ltd The ITO Vs. G-51, Sitapura Industrial Area Ward- 6(3) Tonk Road,Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@ PAN/GIR No.: AADCC 9647 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respo ndent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@…

Hazaribag Ranchi Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6696/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negihazaribagh Ranchi Vs. Ito-14(2)(1) 4Th Floor, Expressway Ltd. The Il&Fs Financial Center Aaykar Bhawan Plot No.C-22, G Block M.K.Road Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aacch2490J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 234BSection 56(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Hazaribagh Ranchi Vs. ITO-14(2)(1) 4th Floor, Expressway Ltd. The IL&FS Financial Center Aaykar Bhawan Plot No.C-22, G Block M.K.Road BKC, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No.AACCH2490J Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue by Shri Sachchidanand Dube, DR Assessee by Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Ms. Niti Agarwal, AR’s Date of Hearing 06/01/2020 Date of Pronouncement 22/01/2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER G.MANJUNATHA (A.M): This appeal filed by the assessee is…

Sikar Bikaner Highway Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6936/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla with Shri Saurabh Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Smiti Samant (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 254(1)Section 56

…essway Ltd. For Assessment Year 2010-11, which was followed in Assessment Year ITA No. 6936 Mum 2018-Shri Bikaner Highway Ltd. 2012-13 (supra), the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal referred and relied upon the decision of Indian Oil Panipat Consortium Ltd. (315 ITR 255 (Delhi High Court) wherein the decision of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) was considered and distinguished. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) funds have been borrowed for setting up of plant and the surplus were invested in Fixed Deposit, the income earned in…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2018/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai International Airport Vs. DCIT,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1st Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 PAN/GIR No.AAECM6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & DCIT-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1st Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airp…

Brahma Center Development Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-02, New Delhi

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

ITA 4341/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

…iture. 15. Hon’ble jurisdictional High court considered the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.(supra) and Bokaro Steel Ltd. (supra) in Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. Vs. ITO (2009) 315 ITR 255(Del) and held that the interest earned on funds primarily brought for infusion in the business could not have been classified as income from other sources. Further, unlike in the case of M/s. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.(supra), in the case on hand, the assessee had already commenced business. 16. Viewing from another angle, w…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Triumph Realty Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6597/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri A.N. Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)

…Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., 243 ITR 2 (SC) and CIT vs. Karnataka Power Corporation, 247 ITR 268. Further reliance was also placed on the 5 judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. vs. ITO, 315 ITR 255 (Del), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court have even taken note of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (supra). The ld. CIT (A), after considering the entire facts and submissions and various judicial pronouncements including the ratio and principle laid down in judgment of Delhi H…

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 4(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2538/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2538/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Corporate Ward – 4(2), Md Chambers, New No.53, Chennai – 34. Dr.R.K. Salai, Mylaypore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Aaacn 9369E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Bharath,Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath,CIT

Section 36(1)Section 56Section 57

…plant and machinery should be capitalized and in such cases only the gross interest payable as reduced by interest income receivable on such borrowings should be capitalized. 2.5 The Appellant relies on the decision in Indian Oil Panipet Power Consortium Ltd 315 ITR 255 wherein the Court held that Interest which accrued on funds deployed with the bank during pre-operative period could not be taxed as income from other sources but constituted capital receipt liable to be set off against pre-operative expenses as the said funds were specifically earmarked for purchase of land development of infrastructure. 2.6 Th…

Gspc Pipavav Power Company Ltd.-Gppc, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1613/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar &For Respondent: Shri/Ms. Sonia Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…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 fun…

The Indian Film Combine P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 16, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1985/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Film Combine Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-16 Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Room No.442, Aayakar 1St Floor, Maker Tower „F‟ Bhawan, M.K. Road, Cuffe-Parade, Mumbai- Mumbai. 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaaci3611E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash Jothwani (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.01.2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “I. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -16 ("Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit"), Ignoring The Relevant Facts On Record, Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Holding That The Assessment Order Passed By The Ito 16(1)(5) ("Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned Ao") U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 26.12.2016 Is Erroneous So As To Be Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue & Directing The Ao To Decide All The Issues Afresh. The Appellant Submits That The Order U/S.263 Of The Act For Modifying The Order U/S.143(3) Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Illegal, Ultra-Virus, In Excess Of And/Or In Want Of Jurisdiction & Otherwise Void. 2. The Pcit Failed To Appreciate That The A.O. While Passing Order U/S 143(3) Has Considered The Facts Of The Case & Had Taken The Legally Correct View. The Pcit Erroneously Observed That There Is At Least Some

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jothwani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…tention of the assessee is that the said interest is capital receipt and to be set off against the preoperative expenses. However, in this regard, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Indian Oil Panipat Power Const. Ltd. (315 ITR 255)(Del), Bokaro Steel Ltd. (236 ITR 315) (SC), Karnal Co-op. Sugar Ltd. (243 ITR 2)(SC) & Gujarat Power Corpn. Ltd. (354 ITR 201)(Guj). The legal proposition is not in dispute. But this fact came into notice that the issue has been examined by AO while passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. The reply was given vide letter dated 16.08.2016, 30.11.…

ACIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal raised by the

ITA 3951/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhacit, Cc-6(4), M/S Arshiya Ltd. Room No. 32(1), Ground 308, Level 3, Ceejay House, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, F Block, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent Dcit Cc-6(4), M/S Arshiya International Ltd. Room No. 32(1), Ground 7Th Floor, Twin Arcade, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, C Wing, Military Road, M.K. Road, Marol Maroshi, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. [Formerly Dcit Cc-6(4), Known As Arshiya International Room No. 32(1), Ground Vs. Ltd.] 3021, Ceejay House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Level-3, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, F-Block, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. [Formerly Dcit Cc-6(4), Known As Arshiya International Room No. 32(1), Ground Vs. Ltd.] 3021, Ceejay House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Level-3, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, F-Block, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018. M/S Arshiya International Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Mukundraj Chare

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

…terest earned on advances to contractor is a capital receipt and not the income from independent sources. In support the submission, the ld. AR relied upon the decisions of CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315 (SC), Indian Panipat Power Consortium vs. ITO (315 ITR 255, CIT vs. Karnal Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd. (243 ITR 2) and PCIT vs. Facor Power Ltd. (380 ITR 474). 52. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and perused the record. During the assessment Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has M/s Arshiya International Ltd. earned interest income of Rs. 13,40,444/- on capital advances m…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sentia Power Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA number 146/Del/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 1461/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisentia Power Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Known As Indiabulls Ward-11(4), Cseb Bhiyathan Power Ltd), New Delhi M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sentia Power Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Circle 23(2) Indiabulls Cseb Bhiyathan New Delhi Power Ltd), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr DR

…ed on the following: i. NTPC Sail Power Company fP.l Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income- tax* [2012] 25 taxmann.com 401 fDelhn “Interest on temporary deposits is not income from other sources This Court, in Indian Oil Panipat Power Construction Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 315 ITR 255/ 181 Taxman 249 [Delhi] 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 which is to be set off against pre-operative expenses, is admissible, as the funds received by the assessee-company from the joint venture partners…

M/S. Sentia Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, ITA number 146/Del/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 3498/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr DR

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

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

ITA 6722/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14 Sugam Vanijya Holding P. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Vr Bengaluru, No.11B, Survey Circle-24(2), No.40/9, Dyvasandra Industrial Area, New Delhi. 2Nd Stage, Kr Puram Hobli, Bengaluru. Pan: Aaacs1883J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Cas & Shri Harpreet Ajmani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rana, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.09.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Construction Of Mixed Commercial Development Projects At Whitefield, Bangalore. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 26.11.2013 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.13,24,24,139/-. Since The Assessee Had Entered Into Certain International

For Appellant: Shri Deepak ChopraFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sugam Vanijya Holding P. Ltd., Vs DCIT, VR Bengaluru, No.11B, Survey Circle-24(2), No.40/9, Dyvasandra Industrial Area, New Delhi. 2nd Stage, KR Puram Hobli, Bengaluru. PAN: AAACS1883J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Deepak Chopra, Shri Kanchan Kaushal, CAs & Shri Harpreet Ajmani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 07.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed…

The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Parikh Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2684/AHD/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 80HSection 8O

…. Therefore we hold that such interest income cannot be subject to deduction under section 80HHC of the Act on the strength of the aforesaid judgment. 5.2 Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Limited Vs. ITO reported in 315 ITR 255 wherein it was held as under: Page 6 of 9 Asstt. Year 2003-04 “The test, therefore, is whether the activity which is taken up for setting up of the business and the funds which are garnered are inextricably connected to the setting up of the plant. “ An analysis of the judgment above reveals that the interest income should be inextricably link…

JCIT (OSD), New Delhi vs. M/S. Imperative Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1763/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(1)

…AO relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of 11 ITA No.1763/Del./2016 Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT 227 ITR 172 (SC). 16. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case cited as Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. vs. ITO 315 ITR 255 (Del.) decided the identical issue by considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) relied upon by the AO by returning following findings :- “The Tribunal had misconstrued the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd…

Karanja Terminal & Logistics P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2472/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble Accountantmember & Shri Ramlal Negi, Hon'Ble Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri J.P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas

Section 115JSection 147Section 148

…terminals which was delayed for the want of M/s. Karanja Terminal & Logistics Pvt. Ltd., various permissions and clearances from the Govt. authorities. The assessee relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium 315 ITR 255 (Delhi). The assessee also submitted before the AO that the said decision was followed in a numbers of decisions in various benches of the tribunals all over India. The assessee submitted that even if the interest was credited to the profit and loss account resulting into book profit during the year would not change the character of the receipt f…

Hll Biotech Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, WD-1(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Stay Petitions filed

ITA 578/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…ant and machinery, such receipts will go to reduce the cost of its assets. 5.4 The Ld. AR also relied on the following case laws: 1. ITO vs. Bank Note paper Mill India P. Ltd. (56 ITR (Trib.) 266 (Bang.) 2. Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. vs. ITO (315 ITR 255) 3. ITO vs. Alliance Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 3191/Mum/2013 dated 28/08/2017) (ITAT, Mumbai) 4.CIT vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (315 ITR 301) (Kar.) 5. Adani Power Ltd. vs. ACIT (155 ITD 239) (ITAT, Ahmedabad) 6. CIT vs. VGR Foundations (298 ITR 132) (Mad.) 5.5 Further, the Ld. AR submitte…

Hll Biotech Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, WD-1(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Stay Petitions filed

ITA 577/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Hll Biotech Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, WD-1(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the Stay Petitions filed

ITA 576/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Ongc Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is allowed

ITA 1522/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Ongc Mangalore Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Petrochemicals Ltd., Income-Tax, Mangalore Special Economic Circle-1(1), Zone, Mangalore. Permude Village, Mangalore – 574 509. Pan : Aafcm 0322 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. R. Kamath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Kamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

…ues raised by the appellant as analysed by the Honorable Delhi High Court in Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. Vs ITO 315 ITR 255 (Delhi). 3. The learned C.I.T. (A) has grossly failed to appreciate the distinction brought out by the Delhi High Court in 315 ITR 255. 4. The learned C.I.T. (A) has grossly failed to distinguish the case of the appellant from the case of Tuticorin Alkali 227 ITR 172(SC). 5. The learned C.I.T. (A) has grossly failed to appreciate that the capital contribution received by the Appellant are inextricably linked to settling up of the project by the appellant. 6. Your appellant crave…