M/s Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. v. CIT (supra)

234 ITR 412Supreme Court of India1998#6606 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(5) of the Indian Income-tax ActSection 143(3) of the Income-tax ActSection 1922Section 1961Section 22 of the Income-tax ActSection 56 of the Income Tax Act

Judgments citing M/s Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. v. CIT (supra)

ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, NEW DELHI vs. MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LTD, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 7967/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Vs. Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Special Range-6, Ltd., New Delhi 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan :Aafcm6698A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Satyan Sethi, Adv. Sh. A.T. Panda, Adv. Department By Sh. B.S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.12.2024 Order

Section 143(3)Section 56

…stified in allowing appeal of the assessee by ignoring the fact that the ratio decided as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) and CIT Vs. Coromandal Cement Ltd. (1998) 234 ITR 412 is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. Both the learned representative next invited our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion reversing the assessment findings disallowing/adding the assessee’s interest on fixed deposits amounting to Rs.7,13,12,467/- as it’s taxable income, as under: “4.2 Grounds of appeal No…

M/S. SNEHA KINETIC POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD,,HYDERABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1054/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sri.Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 142(2)Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.1054/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/s.Sneha Kinetic Power Projects The Deputy Commissioner of Private Limited, Second Floor Income-tax, v. Plot No.13, Sy.No.64 Part, Block-D Central Circle 2(2) Hitech City Layout, Madhapur Bengaluru. Hyderabad – 500 081. PAN : AAFCS1221B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.V.Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Sri.Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2022 Date of Hearing : 19.12.2022 O R D E R Per Ge…

DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4348/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56

…in allowing the appeal of the assessee by ignoring the fact that the assessee ratio decidendi as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) and CIT vs. Coromandal Cement Ltd (1998) 234 ITR 412 is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case?” I.T.A. No. 4348/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2013-14) “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in holding that interest income of Rs 18,96,92,680/- earned on surplus funds during the pre-commencement of business is not liable to tax u/s 56 of the Inco…

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3264/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56

…in allowing the appeal of the assessee by ignoring the fact that the assessee ratio decidendi as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) and CIT vs. Coromandal Cement Ltd (1998) 234 ITR 412 is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case?” I.T.A. No. 4348/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2013-14) “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in holding that interest income of Rs 18,96,92,680/- earned on surplus funds during the pre-commencement of business is not liable to tax u/s 56 of the Inco…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(2), HYDERABAD vs. ELGEN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 244/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Elgen (India) Pvt Ltd., Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 8520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri M. Poorna Chander Rao Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri M. Poorna Chander RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)

…er Income from other sources. The court held that interest :- 38 -: Elgen (India) Pv. Ltd., Hyd. earned by the appellant has rightly been held to be the income and taxable under the head 'Income from other sources'. c) CIT Vs. Coromandal Cements Ltd (1997) [234 ITR 412] (SC) d) CIT Vs. New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd [1979] [118 ITR 1005](Koll.); In this case the appellant earned interest which was deposited in a bank to receive interest. The difference between interest paid and earned was claimed as revenue expenses. The Kolkata High Court, referred to the observation that in case money borrowed by d newly star…

ANRAK ALUMINIUM LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in foregoing terms

ITA 994/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…the claim and was assessed under Income from other sources. The court held that interest earned by the appellant has rightly been held to be the income and taxable under the head 'Income from other sources'. :- 6 -: c) CIT Vs. Coromandal Cements Ltd (1997) [234 ITR 412] (SC) d) CIT Vs. New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd [1979] [118 ITR 1005](Koll.); In this case the appellant earned interest which was deposited in a bank to receive interest. The difference between interest paid and earned was claimed as revenue expenses. The Kolkata High Court, referred to the observation that in case money borrowed by d newly sta…

DY. C.I.T. - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHODEN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result Revenue’s appeals stand dismissed

ITA 7388/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ram Lal Negiita Nos.7388, 7389 & 7399 /Mum/2017 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2012-13 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms Bharti SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Mohan
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 57

…essment year 2011-12, as under: “11. After having gone through the facts of the present case, we find from the records that AO treated the interest income as income from other sources by relying upon the decision in the case of CIT vs Commandal Cements Ltd,, 234 ITR 412 (SC) find Shams Tabrez Vamti vs CIT of Authority of Advance Rulings (Delhi) in AAR 635 of 2005 dt J 7/01/2005. Whereas on the contrary, we notice that assesse had taken demand loan from various financial institutions which had been procured by the assessee company for the sole business purpose of constructing and developing a project at Bangalore…

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)

…f interest on FDRs earned during the period of construction without considering various decisions of the Courts including the following: - (i) Tuticorin Alkali Chemical and Fertilizers Limited Vs. CIT(SC) 227 ITR 172 (ii) CIT Vs Coromandal Cements Ltd. (SC) 234 ITR 412 (iii) CIT Vs Autokast Ltd. (SC) 248 ITR 110 (iv) CIT Vs Kishan Sahakari Chini Mills (All) 280 ITR 617 (v) CIT Vs Manipur Spinning Mills Corpn. Ltd. (Gau) 226 ITR 551.” 3. The facts, in brief, qua the issue involved, are that the assessee company was in process of construction of a hotel and has filed its return of income declaring income of Rs.1…

ACIT-17(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4871/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4871/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit-17(2) बिधम/ Maharashtra-Urban Infrastructure Fund O/O Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Cr-2 Bldg, Ground Floor, Income Tax-17(2), Aayakar Barrister Rajni Patel Road, Bhavan, Room No.123A, 1St Nariman Point, Mumbai- Floor, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400021. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabtm8094M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri J. P. Bairagra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 23.05.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -57, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri J. P. BairagraFor Respondent: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (SR
Section 143(3)

…. Accordingly, the AO relying upon various judicial decision in the case titled as (i) CIT Vs. Govinda Choudhury and Sons (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC) (iii) CIT Vs. Coromandal Cement Ltd. 2 A.Y.2010-11 (1998) 234 ITR 412 (SC) and (iv) CIT Vs. Autokast Ltd. (2001) 248 ITR 110 (SC) allowed expenses of Rs.43,247/- incurred for the purpose of earning interest income and disallowed the balance expenses totaling to Rs.1,96,74,479/-. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the expenses vide order dated 09.01.2…

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORP. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4432/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

…which the assessee has not done. The Ld. DR relied upon the following decisions with regard to Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: 1. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT [1997] 141 CTR 387 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Coromandal Cements Ltd. [1998] 234 ITR 412 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Indian Vaccines Corporation Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 295 (Del) 4. Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 399 (MP) 5. CIT vs. Bhawal Synthetics (India), Udaipur [2017] 297 CTR 104 (Raj.) 6. Thermal Powertech Corporation India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 164 ITD 449 (Hyd. Tri.) 7. Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [2…

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1153/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

…which the assessee has not done. The Ld. DR relied upon the following decisions with regard to Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: 1. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT [1997] 141 CTR 387 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Coromandal Cements Ltd. [1998] 234 ITR 412 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Indian Vaccines Corporation Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 295 (Del) 4. Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 399 (MP) 5. CIT vs. Bhawal Synthetics (India), Udaipur [2017] 297 CTR 104 (Raj.) 6. Thermal Powertech Corporation India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 164 ITD 449 (Hyd. Tri.) 7. Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [2…

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4433/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

…which the assessee has not done. The Ld. DR relied upon the following decisions with regard to Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: 1. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT [1997] 141 CTR 387 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Coromandal Cements Ltd. [1998] 234 ITR 412 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Indian Vaccines Corporation Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 295 (Del) 4. Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 399 (MP) 5. CIT vs. Bhawal Synthetics (India), Udaipur [2017] 297 CTR 104 (Raj.) 6. Thermal Powertech Corporation India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 164 ITD 449 (Hyd. Tri.) 7. Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [2…

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

…he principle laid down in Bokaro Steel Ltd. [supra] was followed. 7.5 We further find that the Supreme Court had again followed the decision of M/s Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) in the case of CIT vs. Coromandal Cements Ltd. [234 ITR 412]. In this case, the relevant portion reads as under: “Against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court refusing to call for a reference of the question whether the Tribunal was right in holding that interest earned on short-term bank deposits during the pre-production stage could not be treated as income from other sources and should go to…

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

…he principle laid down in Bokaro Steel Ltd. [supra] was followed. 7.5 We further find that the Supreme Court had again followed the decision of M/s Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) in the case of CIT vs. Coromandal Cements Ltd. [234 ITR 412]. In this case, the relevant portion reads as under: “Against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court refusing to call for a reference of the question whether the Tribunal was right in holding that interest earned on short-term bank deposits during the pre-production stage could not be treated as income from other sources and should go to…

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

…he principle laid down in Bokaro Steel Ltd. [supra] was followed. 7.5 We further find that the Supreme Court had again followed the decision of M/s Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) in the case of CIT vs. Coromandal Cements Ltd. [234 ITR 412]. In this case, the relevant portion reads as under: “Against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court refusing to call for a reference of the question whether the Tribunal was right in holding that interest earned on short-term bank deposits during the pre-production stage could not be treated as income from other sources and should go to…

REWAS PORTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 7(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 758/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr.P.Danial
Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)Section 57

…dia shipping Corporation versus ACIT (Mad) 240 ITR 24, C.LT V/s Kisan Sahakari Genie bills (All) 280 ITR 617, Chanderpaul sugar: company Ltd versus C.LT (All) 280 ITR 612, Bokaro steel Ltd versus CIT (patna) 170 ITR 545, CIT versus Coromandel Siemens Ltd (SC) 234 ITR 412, C.LT versus auto cast Ltd (SC) 248 ITR 110, Consolidated fibers and chemicals Ltd versus CIT (Cal) 273 ITR 353, Skayef Ltd versus DCIT (ITAT, Bangalore) 71 ITD 419, Godavari fertilisers and chemicals Ltd versus CIT (AP) 198 ITR 388 and CIT versus Hindustan Electro graphite's Ltd (MP) 177 ITR 465, CIT versus Tamil Nadu industrial development Corp…

COASTAL GUJARAT POWER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2298/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No 2298/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Coastal Gujarat Power Limited, The Income Tax Officer 34, Sant Tukaram Road, 6(2)(1), फनाभ/ Carnac Bunder, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400009 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 अऩीराथी की ओय से / Applicant By : Shri Farrokh V Irani प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri M C Omi Ningshen सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of : 15.3.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated25.2.2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee Is Against Upholding The Order Of Assessing Officer As Regards Interest Income From Securities Deposited With Paschim Gujarat Vij Co.Ltd (Hereinafter Referred To As Pgvcl) For Availing Electricity For The Purposes Of Construction Of Power

For Respondent: Shri M C Omi Ningshen
Section 143(3)

…y of income is not dependent upon its destination or the manner of its utilization. It has to be seen whether at the point of accrual, the amount is of the revenue nature and if so, the amount will have to be taxed. 3. CIT V/s Coromandal Cements Ltd.* [1998] 234 ITR 412 (SC) The Hon‟ble Apex Court reversed the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh (234 ITR 413) holding the interest received on short term bank deposits during preproduction stage could not be treated as “Income from other sources” and should go towards project cost” 4. CIT V/s Manglam Cement Ltd. [1995] 81 TAXMAN 397 (RAJ.) Section…

M/s Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. v. CIT (supra) (234 ITR 412) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax