Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT

82 ITR 363Supreme Court of India1971#89 most cited

What is Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Tax liability for an item of income or expenditure is determined solely by the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Entries in an assessee's books of account are not conclusive and do not govern the taxability or deductibility of an item, as the legal rights and obligations under the Act prevail.

654

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 1998 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 82 ITR 363 SC · tax liability · accounting entries · books of account · Income-tax Act provisions · tax law vs accounting · section 145 · mercantile system · book profits · section 115JB · section 37(1) · section 43B

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 14ASection 115JBSection 143(1)Section 145
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhcsection 80hhbook profitsrevenue expendituresection 80iamercantile system of accountingcapital expendituresection 115jsection 80idisallowance under section 14asection 37(1)section 115jb

Judgments citing Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. The ACIT NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 84/IND/2022[2017-18/]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43(1)

…as opined that subsidy received by assessee under PSI, 2007 is of capital nature and hence non-taxable. The Ld. A.R. relied upon following decision: (i) CIT vs. Ponny Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 174Taxmann 87 (SC) (ii) Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 82 ITR 363 (iii) ACIT VS. Mahindra 6919&6920/Mum/2016) Vehicles Manufactures ltd. (iv) Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 215/PN/2014) (V) Bhagyalaxmi Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT No. 3428/Mum/2016) The Ld. A.R. also filed PSI, 2007 of Government of Maharashtra, MOU it entered with Government of Maharashtra & Eligibility Certificate (EC)…

The ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3854/MUM/2006[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

…and control. Profits of the Rail System are embedded in the overall profit of the company. In support of contention that treatment of a transaction in books of account cannot govern the tax statement, the appellant relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court 82 ITR 363 Kadernath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd Vs. CIT and 227 ITR 172 Tuticurin Alkali Chemical Ltd. 16.6 The appellant further submitted that Sec. 80IA(8) itself contemplates a situation where goods or services are transferred by an eligible undertaking to non eligible undertaking and vice versa. In such cases, deduction is to be allowed based on the market value…

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir - 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3517/MUM/2006[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

…and control. Profits of the Rail System are embedded in the overall profit of the company. In support of contention that treatment of a transaction in books of account cannot govern the tax statement, the appellant relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court 82 ITR 363 Kadernath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd Vs. CIT and 227 ITR 172 Tuticurin Alkali Chemical Ltd. 16.6 The appellant further submitted that Sec. 80IA(8) itself contemplates a situation where goods or services are transferred by an eligible undertaking to non eligible undertaking and vice versa. In such cases, deduction is to be allowed based on the market value…

Acc Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 800/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…s delivered by the rail system. In support of its contention that treatment of a transaction in books of accounts cannot govern the tax statement reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kadernath Jute Manufacturing Company Ltd. 82 ITR 362; in the case of TutcorinAlali Chemicals Ltd. in 227 ITR 172; in the case of Godhra Electricity Company in 91 Taxman 91; in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd in 263 ITR 315 and in the case of Sutlet Cotton Mills Ltd. in 116 ITR 1 and submitted that it would be totally incorrect to say that an assessee who raises internal invoices would be entitled to be…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-3(4), Mumbai-400005 vs. M/S. Acc Limited, Mumbai-400020

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 1171/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…s delivered by the rail system. In support of its contention that treatment of a transaction in books of accounts cannot govern the tax statement reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kadernath Jute Manufacturing Company Ltd. 82 ITR 362; in the case of TutcorinAlali Chemicals Ltd. in 227 ITR 172; in the case of Godhra Electricity Company in 91 Taxman 91; in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd in 263 ITR 315 and in the case of Sutlet Cotton Mills Ltd. in 116 ITR 1 and submitted that it would be totally incorrect to say that an assessee who raises internal invoices would be entitled to be…

M/S Kerala Feeds Limited, Thrissur vs. DCIT Cir (1)(1) & Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 942/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Varghese C.V., CA/ARFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 154Section 155Section 2(45)Section 245D

…cumstances. It is trite law that it is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co.Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). If a payment not due, or not following the due process of law, has been paid by the assessee, the Revenue is obliged, in terms of s. 237, to refund it, or else it would be confiscatory. There is merit in the argument that the surcharge and cess cannot be charged twice on the same tax, i.e., once in the year in which the tax is paid in the f…

Sachin Notified Area, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat - 1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 343/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Sachin Notified Area, Vs. The Pcit, Surat-1 Plot No.5719, Unnati Building, Sachin Gidc, Sachin, Surat-394230. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaals0146H Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Appellant By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ompelled to go by the true nature of the receipts and not go by the entry in the books of account, vide landmark judicial precedent in the case of CIT vs. India Discount Co. Ltd. (1970) 75 ITR 191 (195) and Kedernath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (367). Hence, we do not agree with ld DR for the Revenue that because of violation of accounting principles, there is a tax avoidance on the part of the assessee under consideration. Therefore, order passed by the assessing officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 20. We note that similar identical issue by applyin…

DCIT Cir. 6 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4337/MUM/2005[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3439/Mum./2005 (Assessment Year : 2004–05) Grasim Industries Ltd. (Corporate Finance Division) A–2, Aditya Birla Centre ……………. Appellant S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai 400 030 PAN – AAACG4464B v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–6(3), Mumbai ITA no.4337/Mum./2005 (Assessment Year : 2004–05) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–6(3), Mumbai v/s Grasim Industries Ltd. Century Bhavan, 3rd Floor ……………. Respondent Dr. A.B.…

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CIT Cir. 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3439/MUM/2005[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3439/Mum./2005 (Assessment Year : 2004–05) Grasim Industries Ltd. (Corporate Finance Division) A–2, Aditya Birla Centre ……………. Appellant S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai 400 030 PAN – AAACG4464B v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–6(3), Mumbai ITA no.4337/Mum./2005 (Assessment Year : 2004–05) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–6(3), Mumbai v/s Grasim Industries Ltd. Century Bhavan, 3rd Floor ……………. Respondent Dr. A.B.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jammu vs. Gravita Metal Inc, Kathua

ITA 594/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri. P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mehra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(xviii)

…l nor receipt of income, even though an entry to that effect might, in certain circumstances, have been made in the books of account. A mere book-keeping entry cannot be income, unless income has actually resulted. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC) Whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provision of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights nor can the existence or absence of entries in the books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter. Satluj Cotton Mills Vs CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC) Bu…

Measage Gravita Metal Inc, Kathua vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1(4), Kathua

ITA 587/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri. P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mehra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(xviii)

…l nor receipt of income, even though an entry to that effect might, in certain circumstances, have been made in the books of account. A mere book-keeping entry cannot be income, unless income has actually resulted. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC) Whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provision of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights nor can the existence or absence of entries in the books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter. Satluj Cotton Mills Vs CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC) Bu…

DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5978/MUM/2004[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…and control. Profits of the Rail System are embedded in the overall profit of the company. In support of contention that treatment of a transaction in books of account cannot govern the tax statement, the appellant relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court 82 ITR 363 Kadernath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd Vs. CIT and 227 ITR 172 Tuticurin Alkali Chemical Ltd. 16.6 The appellant further submitted that Sec. 80IA(8) itself contemplates a situation where goods or services are transferred by an eligible undertaking to non eligible undertaking and vice versa. In such cases, deduction is to be allowed based on the market value…

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4754/MUM/2004[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…and control. Profits of the Rail System are embedded in the overall profit of the company. In support of contention that treatment of a transaction in books of account cannot govern the tax statement, the appellant relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court 82 ITR 363 Kadernath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd Vs. CIT and 227 ITR 172 Tuticurin Alkali Chemical Ltd. 16.6 The appellant further submitted that Sec. 80IA(8) itself contemplates a situation where goods or services are transferred by an eligible undertaking to non eligible undertaking and vice versa. In such cases, deduction is to be allowed based on the market value…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

…ed the same in the subsequent year is irrelevant for ascertaining the allowability of deduction of the expenditure. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg.Co. Ltd. v. CIT: [1971] 82 ITR 363 wherein it is held that entries in the books of accounts are not conclusive of the nature of expenditure i.e., revenue or capital and whether an assessee is entitled to a deduction or not would entirely depend upon the provisions of law and not treatment given to it in the books of accounts by the Assessee. 22. As already stated above, the entire…

M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…e books of account is not decisive or conclusive on the issue. In this connection, useful reference can be made to landmark judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Parakh & Co. India Ltd. 29 ITR 661 (SC) and Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC). Thus, the reasoning of the Assessing Officer that in the absence of entries in the books or balance sheet reflecting the sale of shares, loss cannot be allowed as a deduction does not hold good, in view law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 59. Next, we deal with an important allegation of the Ass…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…e books of account is not decisive or conclusive on the issue. In this connection, useful reference can be made to landmark judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Parakh & Co. India Ltd. 29 ITR 661 (SC) and Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC). Thus, the reasoning of the Assessing Officer that in the absence of entries in the books or balance sheet reflecting the sale of shares, loss cannot be allowed as a deduction does not hold good, in view law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 59. Next, we deal with an important allegation of the Ass…

Ajanta Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 519/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalajanta Pharma Ltd. 98, Charkop, Kandivali (W) Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aaaca5579P ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…e is not supposed to take advantage of assessee ignorance about treatment of any particular receipt/expenditure. Entries in the books of accounts are not the decisive factor as has been held by honorable apex court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg Ltd Vs CIT 82 ITR 363, UP state industrial development corporation (1997) 225 ITR 703 and CIT Vs Woodward Governor India Pvt Ltd.(2009) 312 ITR 204. 10. In view of the above discussion considering the facts and law of land we direct the AO to reduce the income of the assessee by Rs 3,77,47,870/- being a capital receipt. Resultantly ground no. 3 raised by the assessee i…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…t Limited profits derived by the Rail System. In support of its contention that treatment of a transaction in books of account cannot govern the tax statement, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Kadernath Jute Mfg Co Ltd 82 ITR 362; in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals Ltd in 227 ITR 172; in the case of Godhra Electricity Co in 91 Taxman 91, in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd in 263 ITR 315 and in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Itd in 116 ITR I and submitted that it would be totally incorrect to say that an assessee who raises internal invoices would be entitled to benefi…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…t Limited profits derived by the Rail System. In support of its contention that treatment of a transaction in books of account cannot govern the tax statement, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Kadernath Jute Mfg Co Ltd 82 ITR 362; in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals Ltd in 227 ITR 172; in the case of Godhra Electricity Co in 91 Taxman 91, in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd in 263 ITR 315 and in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Itd in 116 ITR I and submitted that it would be totally incorrect to say that an assessee who raises internal invoices would be entitled to benefi…

Bridgestone India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre Delh, Delhi

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

ITA 1081/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Bridgestone India P.Ltd Plot No-A-43, Phase-Ii, Midc Addl/Jt/Dy/Cit/Ito, National E- Chakan, Village Sawardari, Assessment Centre Vs. Taluka Khed, Delhi-110 003 Pune-410501 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabcb2304E Assessee By : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Adv Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 144BSection 144CSection 42(1)Section 43(1)

…s opined that subsidy received by assessee under PSI, 2007 is of capital nature and hence non-taxable. The Ld. A.R. relied upon following decision: (i) CIT vs. Ponny Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 174 Taxmann 87 (SC) (ii) Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 82 ITR 363 (iii) ACIT Manufactures ltd. (ITA No. vs. Mahindra Vehicles 6919&6920/Mum/2016) (iv) Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 215/PN/2014) (v) Bhagyalaxmi Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT No. 3428/Mum/2016) The Ld. A.R. also filed PSI, 2007 of Government of Maharashtra, MOU it entered with Government of Maharashtra & Eligibility Certifi…