National Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT

203 ITR 410High Court1993#7903 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 194ASection 201Section 201ASection 40(a)(ia)Section 80IA

Judgments citing National Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT

PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, except for one ground no

ITA 2801/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 194ASection 201

…on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Associated Cement Companies Limited (172 ITR 257). The aforesaid decision has been followed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (203 ITR 410). 82. Once there is a categorical finding that interest income has been considered as business income in the earlies years which has been written off by the assessee during the year under consideration, the conditions provided in Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(i) stands satisfied and therefore, the finding and observation of the ld. CIT(A) is uphel…

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE TRANSPORT AND TRAVELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5683/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh YadavFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Thar
Section 143(3)

…. Ammolite Holding Limited and, therefore, it has not been capitalised or treated as stock-in-trade. For coming to this conclusion, he has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of National Organic Chemicals Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, 203 ITR 410 (Bom.). Again, insofar as the Assessing Officer‟s observation that the said expenses have not been incurred during the previous year because the yacht was brought in India in Assessment Year 2009-10 and, therefore, the expenses cannot be claimed in Assessment Year 2013-14, he held that since the assessee has paid the Customs Duty in the month of…

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…uct of its business since the assessee had to supply electricity to its sole consumer the UPPCL. This was not an advantage of a capital nature.” 24. Further, we noted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of National Organic Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 410 (Bom) took a view that the assessee incurred expenditure for the purpose of construction of jetty for handling, storage and transportation of materials manufactured or handled by the assessee. The assessee was granted license by the state government. Under the terms of license, the assessee was given the right to use the jetty without payment of…

DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and revenue’s appeal is

ITA 4838/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ranjit Singh Arneja

…uct of its business since the assessee had to supply electricity to its sole consumer the UPPCL. This was not an advantage of a capital nature.” 24. Further, we noted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of National Organic Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 410 (Bom) took a view that the assessee incurred expenditure for the purpose of construction of jetty for handling, storage and transportation of materials manufactured or handled by the assessee. The assessee was granted license by the state government. Under the terms of license, the assessee was given the right to use the jetty without payment of…

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and revenue’s appeal is

ITA 4382/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ranjit Singh Arneja

…uct of its business since the assessee had to supply electricity to its sole consumer the UPPCL. This was not an advantage of a capital nature.” 24. Further, we noted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of National Organic Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 410 (Bom) took a view that the assessee incurred expenditure for the purpose of construction of jetty for handling, storage and transportation of materials manufactured or handled by the assessee. The assessee was granted license by the state government. Under the terms of license, the assessee was given the right to use the jetty without payment of…

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 5655/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…uct of its business since the assessee had to supply electricity to its sole consumer the UPPCL. This was not an advantage of a capital nature.” 24. Further, we noted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of National Organic Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 410 (Bom) took a view that the assessee incurred expenditure for the purpose of construction of jetty for handling, storage and transportation of materials manufactured or handled by the assessee. The assessee was granted license by the state government. Under the terms of license, the assessee was given the right to use the jetty without payment o…

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4784/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…uct of its business since the assessee had to supply electricity to its sole consumer the UPPCL. This was not an advantage of a capital nature.” 24. Further, we noted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of National Organic Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 410 (Bom) took a view that the assessee incurred expenditure for the purpose of construction of jetty for handling, storage and transportation of materials manufactured or handled by the assessee. The assessee was granted license by the state government. Under the terms of license, the assessee was given the right to use the jetty without payment o…

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 5592/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…uct of its business since the assessee had to supply electricity to its sole consumer the UPPCL. This was not an advantage of a capital nature.” 24. Further, we noted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of National Organic Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 410 (Bom) took a view that the assessee incurred expenditure for the purpose of construction of jetty for handling, storage and transportation of materials manufactured or handled by the assessee. The assessee was granted license by the state government. Under the terms of license, the assessee was given the right to use the jetty without payment o…

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4911/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…uct of its business since the assessee had to supply electricity to its sole consumer the UPPCL. This was not an advantage of a capital nature.” 24. Further, we noted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of National Organic Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 410 (Bom) took a view that the assessee incurred expenditure for the purpose of construction of jetty for handling, storage and transportation of materials manufactured or handled by the assessee. The assessee was granted license by the state government. Under the terms of license, the assessee was given the right to use the jetty without payment o…

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNAIOTNAL AIRPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4675/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…uct of its business since the assessee had to supply electricity to its sole consumer the UPPCL. This was not an advantage of a capital nature.” 24. Further, we noted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of National Organic Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 410 (Bom) took a view that the assessee incurred expenditure for the purpose of construction of jetty for handling, storage and transportation of materials manufactured or handled by the assessee. The assessee was granted license by the state government. Under the terms of license, the assessee was given the right to use the jetty without payment o…

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(20, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 1081/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…uct of its business since the assessee had to supply electricity to its sole consumer the UPPCL. This was not an advantage of a capital nature.” 24. Further, we noted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of National Organic Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 410 (Bom) took a view that the assessee incurred expenditure for the purpose of construction of jetty for handling, storage and transportation of materials manufactured or handled by the assessee. The assessee was granted license by the state government. Under the terms of license, the assessee was given the right to use the jetty without payment o…

DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4374/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Income-Tax- Range 3(1), फनधभ/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Gujarat Ambuja Cements Tax-Range 3(1), Limited, 122, Maker फनधभ/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Chambers, Iii, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg0569P (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumen Adak & HarishFor Respondent: Shri K B Shukla

…support of his contention he relied on the following decisions : A) CIT V/s Gujarat Mineral Devp.Corp. (1981) 132 ITR 377(Guj); which is affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and reported in (2001) 249 ITR 787; B) National Organic Chemicals Ltd V/s CIT (1993) 203 ITR 410 (Bom) C) CIT V/s Associated Cementg Co. Ltd (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC); D) CIT V/s Samsung India Ele.c Ltd (2014) 222 Taxman 21 (Del) E) Add.CIT V/s Dhampur Sugar Mills (P) Ltd (2015) 370 ITR 194 (All); F) CIT V/s Saw Pipes Ltd (2008) 300 ITR 35 (Del) 31 and 4374/Mum/2005 G) Mafatlas Fines Spg. And Mfg Co.Ltd V/s CIT (1993) 69 Taxman 385 (Bom); H)…

M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3360/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Income-Tax- Range 3(1), फनधभ/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Gujarat Ambuja Cements Tax-Range 3(1), Limited, 122, Maker फनधभ/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Chambers, Iii, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg0569P (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumen Adak & HarishFor Respondent: Shri K B Shukla

…support of his contention he relied on the following decisions : A) CIT V/s Gujarat Mineral Devp.Corp. (1981) 132 ITR 377(Guj); which is affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and reported in (2001) 249 ITR 787; B) National Organic Chemicals Ltd V/s CIT (1993) 203 ITR 410 (Bom) C) CIT V/s Associated Cementg Co. Ltd (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC); D) CIT V/s Samsung India Ele.c Ltd (2014) 222 Taxman 21 (Del) E) Add.CIT V/s Dhampur Sugar Mills (P) Ltd (2015) 370 ITR 194 (All); F) CIT V/s Saw Pipes Ltd (2008) 300 ITR 35 (Del) 31 and 4374/Mum/2005 G) Mafatlas Fines Spg. And Mfg Co.Ltd V/s CIT (1993) 69 Taxman 385 (Bom); H)…

ANAND TRANSPORT,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.737/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 147

…assessee is purely temporary structure in the land belonging to Ennore Port Trust. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 100%. The Ld.counsel placed her reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in National Organic Chemical v. CIT (1993) 203 ITR 410 and submitted that on identical circumstances, the Bombay High Court allowed 100% depreciation. The Ld.counsel has also placed her reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Geetha Hotels (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 254 ITR 649. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Anand Theatres (2000) 244 ITR 192, the Ld.counsel submitted…