Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax

26 ITR 765Supreme Court of India1954#1756 most cited

What is Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax authority for?

The definition of 'business' is of wide import, encompassing any trade, commerce, manufacture, or adventure in the nature of trade. Even a single and isolated transaction can constitute an 'adventure in the nature of trade' if it bears the clear indicia of trade, and no fixed formula can be evolved to determine the character of such isolated transactions.

64

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,416 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills · Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax · 26 ITR 765 · SC 1954 · definition of business · adventure in the nature of trade · single isolated transaction · indicia of trade · Section 2(4) Income Tax Act · Section 2(5) Excess Profits Tax Act · scope of business income · trade character

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(4)Section 2(5)Section 263Section 32Section 1961Section 2(13) of the Income Tax Act
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 208section 10(2a)section 14a disallowancesection 32(1)(iia)clarificatory amendmentsection 32(1)(ii)strategic investmentsection 92ca(1)section 144c(3)corporate guaranteeadditional depreciationsection 57

Judgments citing Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax

Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 669/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…ich would also include all such activities which coalesce into setting up of the business. M/s Road Infrastructure Dev. Com. of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. ACIT 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 infused to purchase land and to develop infrastructure - then it c…

Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 668/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…ich would also include all such activities which coalesce into setting up of the business. M/s Road Infrastructure Dev. Com. of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. ACIT 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 infused to purchase land and to develop infrastructure - then it c…

M/S. Asset Investment Services, Thane vs. ITO-26(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-

ITA 332/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…. Thereby, in no manner it can be concluded that assessee is not in business activity' of renting its properties. Hon'ble Apex Court at Page nos. 772-773 in the case of Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills vs Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax IR 1955 SC 176, (1954) 26 ITR 765 SC, 1955 1 SCR 952 stated as under:- "Business" as defined in section 2(5) of the Excess Profits Tax Act includes amongst others, any trade, commerce or manufacture or any adventure in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture. Assessment Year: 2012-13 The first part of this definition of "a business" in the Excess Profits Tax Act is the same…

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

…ted 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 infused to purchase land and to develop infrastructure then it can…

M/S. Asset Investment Services, Thane vs. ACIT-26(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 331/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 22

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 331 /Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s Asset Investment Vs. A.C.I.T.-26(1) Room No. 701, C-12, 7th Services, Shop No. 11006, Ground Floor, Pratyakshakar Floor, Bipasa CHS, Star Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Colony, Manpada Road, Complex, Bandra East, Dombivli East, Thane. Mumbai-400051. PAN/GIR No. AAQFA 7714 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) ITA No. 334 & 333/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/s Asset Investment Vs. I.T.O.-26(1)(2) Room No. 701, C-12, 7th Services, Shop No. 11006, Ground Floor, Praty…

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)

…ected 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 infused to purchase land and to develop infrastructure - then it c…

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)

…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 venture partners were primarily infused to purchase land and to develop infrastructure - then it c…

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

…wide import which would also include all such activities which coalesce into setting up of the business. See Mazacraon Dock Ltd vs CIT & Excess Profits Tax; (1958) 34ITR 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 P a g e 9 | 13 ITA NOS.56 ,57 & 58 /Ra n/2 01 5 Assessm ent Y ears: 2 007 -08 to 200 9-2 010 venture company by the joint ve…

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)

…ted 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 infused to purchase land and to develop infrastructure then it can…

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…

ITO 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bharat Tiles and Marble P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5446/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Asghar Zain V.P, DRFor Respondent: Shri Pramila Ishwar Rathi, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 40Section 404

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 5446/Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2014-15) Income Tax Officer, M/s Bharat Tiles & Marbles Ward 3(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 666, 6th Floor, Vs. 4/27. Kamal Mansion, Athur Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. road, Bhunder Road, colaba, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 005 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AAACB1727A अपीलाथी की…

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

…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 venture company by the joint venture partners were primarily infused to purchase land and to develo…

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

…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 infused to purchase land and to develop infrastructure then it can…

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

…cted 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 infused to purchase land and to develop infrastructure then it can…

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

…hich 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 infused to purchase land and to develop infrastructure - then it c…

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)

…ner 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/s Narayan Swadeshi Weaving Mills (26 ITR 765) . The activity of the assessee are primarily as under: a) Acquiring the land. b) Developing the housing projects. c) Selling / Leasing of houses. One can make out a clear conclusion from these activities that developing the housing project after providing various infrastructures and selling the same is very much i commercial in nature. In view…

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

…ected 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 infused to purchase land and to develop infrastructure - then it c…

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

…ion 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 have the valid reason for taking that interest earned (Rs 91,56,600.00 and TDS of Rs 12,72,540.…

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

…ion 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 have the valid reason for taking that interest earned (Rs 91,56,600.00 and TDS of Rs 12,72,540.…

Prl Comm of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad vs. M/S Nuzividu Swathi Coastal Consortium, Hyderabad

ITTA/147/2016HC Telangana24 Aug 2018

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN