Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT & Excess Profits Tax

34 ITR 368Supreme Court of India1958#2001 most cited

What is Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT & Excess Profits Tax authority for?

Investments made by a holding company in its subsidiary can be considered a business activity, allowing related business expenditures to be deducted and not disallowed.

57

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT · 34 ITR 368 · business expenditure · holding company investment · subsidiary investment · disallowance of expenditure · business activity · Section 37(1) · strategic investment · Section 143(3) assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 71Section 80M
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(13)section 208section 10(2a)section 14a disallowancesection 80msection 71section 32(1)(iia)clarificatory amendmentlegal expensessection 32(1)(ii)strategic investmentsection 92ca(1)

Judgments citing Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT & Excess Profits Tax

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

…ould have to be an activity which is in some manner or form connected with business. The word "business" is of wide import which would also include all such activities which coalesce into setting up of the. business. See Mazagaon Dock Ltd. vs. CIT/CEPT (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC) and Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills vs. CEPT (1954) 26 ITR 765 (SC). Once it is held that the assessee's income is an income connected with business, which would be so in the present case, in view of the finding of fact by the CIT(A) that the monies which were inducted into the joint venture company by the joint venture partners were primarily…

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)

…would have to be an activity which is in some manner or form connected with business. The word "business" is of wide import which would also include all such activities which coalesce into setting up of the business. See Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT & EPT [1958] 34 ITR 368 (SC), and Narain Swdeshi Weaving Mills v. CEPT [1954] 26 ITR 765 (SC). Once it is held that the assessee's income is an income connected with business, which would be so in the present case, in view of the finding of fact by the CIT(A) that the monies which were inducted into the joint venture company by the joint venture partners were primarily i…

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)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri A.N. Mishra, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income-tax Officer, vs. Triumph Realty Pvt. Ltd., Ward 25(4), New Delhi Plot No.2, Vasantkunj, Phase-II, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. PAN-AACCT8092L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal & Ms. Rinki, Advocates Date of Hearing 21.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement 29.11.2019 ORDER Per Amit Shukla, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order…

M/S Tenughat Emta Coal Mines Ltd., Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Ranchi

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

ITA 56/RAN/2015[07-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Manish Mallick Adv & L.N.Mallick, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.56,57 & 58/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2009-2010 M/s. Tenughat Emta Coal Mines Vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Ranchi Ltd., 401, Radium Court, Radium Road, Ranchi PAN/GIR No.AACCT 0777 A (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Manish Mallick Adv & L.N.Mallick, CA Revenue by : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 27/08/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30/10/2019 O R D E R Per Bench. The above captioned appeals have been filed by the asses…

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)

…ould have to be an activity which is in some manner or form connected with business. The word "business" is of wide import which would also include all such activities which coalesce into setting up of the. business. See Mazagaon Dock Ltd. vs. CIT/CEPT (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC) and Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills vs. CEPT (1954) 26 ITR 765 (SC). Once it is held that the assessee's income is an income connected with business, which would be so in the present case, in view of the finding of fact by the CIT(A) that the monies which were inducted into the joint venture company by the joint venture partners were primarily…

Atul Arun Kasbekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal in ITA no

ITA 784/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Biren GabhawalaFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Verma
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(14)

…presentative relied upon the following decisions:– i) Sumati Dayal v/s CIT, [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC); ii) ACIT v/s Faiz Murtaza Ali, [2012] 52 SOT 358 (Del.); iii) P.M. Mohammad Meerakhan v/s CIT, [1969] 73 ITR 735 (SC); iv) Mazagaon dock Ltd. v/s CIT, [1958] 34 ITR 368 (SC); & v) H.H. Maharaja Rana Hemant Singhji v/s CIT, [1976] 103 ITR 61 (SC). 6 Atul Arun Kesabekar 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. The dispute lies within a narrow compass as to whether the income derived from sale of paintings is to be treated as capital receipt as claimed by the assessee or it is to be t…

Gulmohar Park Mall Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3560/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2019AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 57Section 57(2)(iii)

…nsidered accordingly. The assessee further relied upon the principle settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Bros. Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 51 ITR 353. The assessee put reliance on the following case laws: (a) Mazagaon Dock Ltd vs. CIT 34 ITR 368 (SC) (b) B P Ray vs. ITO 129 295 (SC) (c) S.V. Mercantile Corpo (P) Ltd vs. CIT, 83 ITR 700 (SC) (d) CIT vs. Khostla India Ltd , 700 (SC) (e) Universal Plant Ltd, 237 ITR 454 (SC) (f) CIT Vs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd, 169 ITR 597 (SC) (g) Balaji Enterprises vs. CIT 225 ITR 471 (Kerala) (h) PFH Mall & Retails Mgt. Ltd. Vs. Asst, CIT 16 GOT 83 (Kolka…

Gulmohar Park Mall Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3559/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 57Section 57(2)(iii)

…nsidered accordingly. The assessee further relied upon the principle settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Bros. Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 51 ITR 353. The assessee put reliance on the following case laws: (a) Mazagaon Dock Ltd vs. CIT 34 ITR 368 (SC) (b) B P Ray vs. ITO 129 295 (SC) (c) S.V. Mercantile Corpo (P) Ltd vs. CIT, 83 ITR 700 (SC) (d) CIT vs. Khostla India Ltd , 700 (SC) (e) Universal Plant Ltd, 237 ITR 454 (SC) (f) CIT Vs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd, 169 ITR 597 (SC) (g) Balaji Enterprises vs. CIT 225 ITR 471 (Kerala) (h) PFH Mall & Retails Mgt. Ltd. Vs. Asst, CIT 16 GOT 83 (Kolka…

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)

…e an activity which is in some manner or form connected with business. The word "business" is of wide import which would also include all such activities which coalesce into setting up of the business. See Mazagaon Dock Ltd vs CIT & Excess Profits Tax; (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC), and Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills vs Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax; (1954) 26 ITR 765 (SC). Once it is held that the assessee’s income is an income connected with business, which would be so in the present case, in view of the finding of fact by the CIT(A) that the monies which were inducted into the joint venture company by the joint v…

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

…be an activity which is in some manner or form connected with business. The word "business" is of wide import which would also include all such activities which coalesce into setting up of the business. See Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT/Excess Profits Tax (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC) and Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax (1954) 26 ITR 765 (SC). Once it is held that the assesses income is an income connected with business, which would be so in the present case, in view of the finding of fact by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the monies which were inducted into the joint vent…

The ITO, Ward-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, as well as Cross Objection filed by Assessee both, are dismissed

ITA 1710/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1710/Ahd/2016 With C.O. 120/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Ito, M/S. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd., Ward-1(1), Vs. Adani House, Ahmedabad. Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380002. Pan: Aagca9379P

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar & Parin
Section 234BSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56

…ome manner or form connected with business. The word "business" is of wide import which would also include all such activities which coalesce into setting up of the business. See Mazagaon Dock CO No.120/Ahd/2016 Asstt. Year 2012-13 9 Ltd. vs. CIT/CEPT (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC) and Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills vs. CEPT (1954) 26 ITR 765 (SC). Once it is held that the assessee's income is an income connected with business, which would be so in the present case, in view of the finding of fact by the CIT(A) that the monies which were inducted into the joint venture company by the joint venture partners were primarily…

The ITO, Ward-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, cross objection of the assessee on this score stands allowed

ITA 1430/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1430/Ahd/2015 With Cross Objection No. 114/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 56

…would have to be an activity which is in some manner or form connected with business. The word "business" is of wide import which would also include all such activities which coalesce into setting up of the business. See Mazagaon Dock Ltd. vs. CIT/CEPT (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC) and Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills vs. CEPT (1954) 26 ITR 765 (SC). Once it is held that the assessee's income is an income connected with business, which would be so in the present case, in view of the finding of fact by the CIT(A) that the monies which were inducted into the joint venture company by the joint venture partners were primarily…

M/S. Jaipur Tax Weaving Park Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Her.”

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…connected with business. The word "business" is of wide import which would also include all such 26 M/s Jaipur Texweaving Park Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur activities which coalesce into setting up of the business. See Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT & EPT [1958] 34 ITR 368 (SC), and Narain Swdeshi Weaving Mills v. CEPT [1954] 26 ITR 765 (SC). Once it is held that the assessee's income is an income connected with business, which would be so in the present case, in view of the finding of fact by the CIT(A) that the monies which were inducted into the joint venture company by the joint venture partners were primarily i…

Muniwar Abad Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Dy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) - I(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2176/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 2(15)

…any commercial activity cannot be acceptable. ii) From the plain reading, it can be understood- that business includes any trade, commerce or manufacturing or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture. In the case of Mazgaon Docks Ltd. v/s CIT (34 ITR 368, 376 (SC) it is explained that business is a word of wide import and is fiscal statues, it must be considered in a broad manner nature than in a restrict sense. Business has been defined in the case of following decision:  CIT V/s Motilal Heerabai Spinning & Wvg. Co. Ltd. (113 ITR 173)  CIT V/s Bharat Development Pvt. Ltd. (133 ITR 470)  CIT V…

Jorabat Shillong Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 3667/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3667/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ Jorabat Shillong Expressway Ito 14(2)(1) Ltd. (Erstwhile Income Tax Vs. The Il&Fs Financial Center, Officer-10(1)(4) Mumbai Room No. 457, 4Th Floor, Plot No. C-22, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Bandra(E), Mumbai-400051. Karve Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccj3827H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dilip V. Lakhani (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.02.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming That The Interest Income Of Rs.31,13,010/- The Appellant Prays That The Interest Income Earned By The Appellant Amounting To

For Appellant: Shri Dilip V. Lakhani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 234B

…would have to be an activity which is in some manner or form connected with business. The word "business" is of wide import which would also include all such activities which coalesce into setting up of the business. See Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT & EPT [1958] 34 ITR 368 (SC), and Narain Swdeshi Weaving Mills v. CEPT [1954] 26 ITR 765 (SC). Once it is held that the assessee's income is an income connected with business, which would be so in the present case, in view of the finding of fact by the CIT(A) that the monies which were inducted into the joint venture company by the joint venture partners were primarily i…

Mjsj Coal Limited, Angul vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 107/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.429/Ctk/2016, 68/Ctk/2017 & 107/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys :2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Mjsj Coal Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Dhenkanal / At/Po:Balanda, Talcher, Ito, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Dist-Angul, Odisha-759116 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm 1095 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-1&3, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.04.2016, 04.11.2016 & 04.12.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0120/2014-15, 0472/15-16 & 0254/16-17, For The Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014- 2015. 2. Since Issues The Above Appeals Are Common, Therefore, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Shall Take Up Assessee’S Appeal I.E. Ita No.429/Ctk/2016 For Assessment Year 2011-2012 & The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- Ground Of Appeal • We Are Not Agreeing With The Computation Of Tax On Interest Earn By Company Made By Assessing Officer. • During The Assessment, The Cases We Submitted To Justify Our Claim (As Mentioned In Statement Of Facts) Has Not Been Paid Any Emphasis For Deciding The Case By The A.0 & Cit (Appeal- 3),Bhubaneswar. On The Other Hand The A.0 & Cit (Appeal-3) Finally Imposed His Decision Based On The Facts Of Alkali Tuticorin Chem. & Fertilizers Ltd. In Which It Has Earned Interest On The Funds, Were Borrowed Funds Only

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, CITDR

…IT v. Govinda Choudhury and Sons (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC) 9- CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. (2011)337ITR 389 (Del) 10- Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 315 ITR 255 (Del) 1 l-Mazagaon Dock Ltd v. CIT/Excess Profits Tax (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC), 12- Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax (1954) 26 ITR 765 (SC) 13- S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd v. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC). • The imposed demand is prejudicial and offers unnecessary hardship on us, since our affairs is still lying on the verge of development only, we do not have commenced yet. • We…

Mjsj Coal Limited, Angul vs. ITO, Ward-2, Dhenkanal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 429/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.429/Ctk/2016, 68/Ctk/2017 & 107/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys :2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Mjsj Coal Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Dhenkanal / At/Po:Balanda, Talcher, Ito, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Dist-Angul, Odisha-759116 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm 1095 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-1&3, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.04.2016, 04.11.2016 & 04.12.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0120/2014-15, 0472/15-16 & 0254/16-17, For The Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014- 2015. 2. Since Issues The Above Appeals Are Common, Therefore, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Shall Take Up Assessee’S Appeal I.E. Ita No.429/Ctk/2016 For Assessment Year 2011-2012 & The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- Ground Of Appeal • We Are Not Agreeing With The Computation Of Tax On Interest Earn By Company Made By Assessing Officer. • During The Assessment, The Cases We Submitted To Justify Our Claim (As Mentioned In Statement Of Facts) Has Not Been Paid Any Emphasis For Deciding The Case By The A.0 & Cit (Appeal- 3),Bhubaneswar. On The Other Hand The A.0 & Cit (Appeal-3) Finally Imposed His Decision Based On The Facts Of Alkali Tuticorin Chem. & Fertilizers Ltd. In Which It Has Earned Interest On The Funds, Were Borrowed Funds Only

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, CITDR

…IT v. Govinda Choudhury and Sons (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC) 9- CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. (2011)337ITR 389 (Del) 10- Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 315 ITR 255 (Del) 1 l-Mazagaon Dock Ltd v. CIT/Excess Profits Tax (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC), 12- Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax (1954) 26 ITR 765 (SC) 13- S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd v. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC). • The imposed demand is prejudicial and offers unnecessary hardship on us, since our affairs is still lying on the verge of development only, we do not have commenced yet. • We…

Nerka Chemicals P. Ltd, Gujrat vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4423/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Sh. Girish Dave Special
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 2(22)(a)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 28Section 56(1)

…should arise from the business, (ii) the world business is of wide import and must be construed in a broad rather than a restriced meaning, the entire trnasaction ought to be treated as busienss transaction and relied on decision in Mazgaon Dock Ltd. vs. CIT 34 ITR 368 (SC) (iii) the vlaue of beneift received shall be income of the receipient for which the ld. DR relied upon the decision of Delhi High Corut in CIT vs. Shivraj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (iv) the benefit should be non- monetary, (v) there should be direct nexus between the benefit received and the business of the assessee and (vi) and there should be absen…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5489/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Anil Chopra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

…ITA No. 5489/Del/2013 Assessment year 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaypee Powergrid Ltd., ITO, 63, JA House, Basant Lok, Ward 4(1), vs Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AABCJ8054F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Anil Chopra, FCA Shri V.K. Garg, Adv. Shri Parveen Kumar, FCA Respondent by : Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 24.07.2018 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. This appeal ha…

DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue (ITA No

ITA 49/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1362/Kol/2015& 49/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11& 2011-12) I.T.O Wd-2(3), Kolkata Vs. M/S Kolkata Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 7Th Floor, Hrbc Bhavan, 4Th& 5Th R/No.21, Kol – 69. Floor, Munshi Prem Chand Sarani, Kolkata – 700 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aadck 5313 J (Appellant) .. (Assessee) Appellantby : Shriarindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Assesseeby :Shri Vikash Singhal. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: These Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue,Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11,Aredirected Against The Order Passed By The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1,Kolkata,Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2.Since These Two Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.The Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.1362/Kol/2015, A.Y 2010-11, Is Taken As The Lead Case. 4.The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue (In Lead Case In Ita No.1362/Kol/2015, A.Y 2010-11) Are As Under:

For Appellant: ShriArindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56

…. The word "business" is of wide import which would also include all such activities which coalesce into setting up of the business. We take support of these propositions from the judgments of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Dock Ltd. vs. CIT/CEPT (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC) and Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills vs. CEPT (1954) 26 ITR 765 (SC). Once it is held that the assessee's income is an income connected with business, which would be so in the present case, in view of the finding of fact by the CIT(A) that the monies which were inducted into the joint venture company by the joint venture partners were primarily…