Neyveli Lignite Corporation v. ACIT

93 TTJ 685Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#13027 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 36(l)(vii)section 2(u)section 23asection 2(c)section 36(l)section 36(1)(viia)section 36(1)(vii)section 22amalgamationsection 80p(2)(a)section 80p(2)(d)section 80p(2)(a)(i)

Judgments citing Neyveli Lignite Corporation v. ACIT

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. Additional CIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 521/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. CIT vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd [80 DTR (Dei) 7] The Jalore Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT [ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No 39/Jodh/2012 Dated 09/06/2014] [PB Pg 142 to 153, 149, 151-152] Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs ACIT [93 TTJ 685 (ITAT (Chen))] Tata Communication Ltd. Vs. JCIT [ITAT Mumbai Bench ITA No 3062/Mum/2003 Dated 05/12/2012]” 14.4 The department grievance was that indeed, the exact quantum of liability and the exact date of payment in future were not known. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, in our view, the very purpose of the creating a provision and…

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. Additional CIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 520/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. CIT vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd [80 DTR (Dei) 7] The Jalore Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT [ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No 39/Jodh/2012 Dated 09/06/2014] [PB Pg 142 to 153, 149, 151-152] Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs ACIT [93 TTJ 685 (ITAT (Chen))] Tata Communication Ltd. Vs. JCIT [ITAT Mumbai Bench ITA No 3062/Mum/2003 Dated 05/12/2012]” 14.4 The department grievance was that indeed, the exact quantum of liability and the exact date of payment in future were not known. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, in our view, the very purpose of the creating a provision and…

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 519/JODH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. CIT vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd [80 DTR (Dei) 7] The Jalore Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT [ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No 39/Jodh/2012 Dated 09/06/2014] [PB Pg 142 to 153, 149, 151-152] Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs ACIT [93 TTJ 685 (ITAT (Chen))] Tata Communication Ltd. Vs. JCIT [ITAT Mumbai Bench ITA No 3062/Mum/2003 Dated 05/12/2012]” 14.4 The department grievance was that indeed, the exact quantum of liability and the exact date of payment in future were not known. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, in our view, the very purpose of the creating a provision and…

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 518/JODH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. CIT vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd [80 DTR (Dei) 7] The Jalore Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT [ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No 39/Jodh/2012 Dated 09/06/2014] [PB Pg 142 to 153, 149, 151-152] Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs ACIT [93 TTJ 685 (ITAT (Chen))] Tata Communication Ltd. Vs. JCIT [ITAT Mumbai Bench ITA No 3062/Mum/2003 Dated 05/12/2012]” 14.4 The department grievance was that indeed, the exact quantum of liability and the exact date of payment in future were not known. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, in our view, the very purpose of the creating a provision and…

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 517/JODH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. CIT vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd [80 DTR (Dei) 7] The Jalore Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT [ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No 39/Jodh/2012 Dated 09/06/2014] [PB Pg 142 to 153, 149, 151-152] Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs ACIT [93 TTJ 685 (ITAT (Chen))] Tata Communication Ltd. Vs. JCIT [ITAT Mumbai Bench ITA No 3062/Mum/2003 Dated 05/12/2012]” 14.4 The department grievance was that indeed, the exact quantum of liability and the exact date of payment in future were not known. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, in our view, the very purpose of the creating a provision and…

ACIT, Circle, Pali vs. M/S. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Jodhpur

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 504/JODH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. CIT vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd [80 DTR (Dei) 7] The Jalore Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT [ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No 39/Jodh/2012 Dated 09/06/2014] [PB Pg 142 to 153, 149, 151-152] Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs ACIT [93 TTJ 685 (ITAT (Chen))] Tata Communication Ltd. Vs. JCIT [ITAT Mumbai Bench ITA No 3062/Mum/2003 Dated 05/12/2012]” 14.4 The department grievance was that indeed, the exact quantum of liability and the exact date of payment in future were not known. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, in our view, the very purpose of the creating a provision and…

Asst.C.I.T. 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Baroda, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed in the same lines

ITA 4873/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bank Of Baroda, Addl. Cit, Range – 2(1), C-26, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Queens Road, Complex, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaacb 1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit 2(1), M/S. Bank Of Baroda, Aayakar Bhavan, C-26, G-Block, Baroda R.No.561, 5Th Floor, Corporate Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400020 Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaacb 1534F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jasbir Chouhan, Sr.A.RFor Respondent: Shri C. Naresh, D.R
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 91

…or an expenditure which is contractual in nature is foisted on appellant the same is allowable as deduction though the same could be quantified based on reasonable estimate only. Reliance is placed on the decision of ITAT in Neyveli Lignite Corporation v ACIT 93 TTJ 685 (Chen) 4.1 The Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 14A computed as per Rule 8D at Rs.65.37 crore on a tax free income of Rs. 60.81 crore over looking fact that the appellant had himself quantified the disallowance at Rs.6.05 crore being 0.5% of average investments earning tax free income. The CIT (A) having agreed with the claim of…

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed in the same lines

ITA 4619/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bank Of Baroda, Addl. Cit, Range – 2(1), C-26, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Queens Road, Complex, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaacb 1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit 2(1), M/S. Bank Of Baroda, Aayakar Bhavan, C-26, G-Block, Baroda R.No.561, 5Th Floor, Corporate Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400020 Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaacb 1534F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jasbir Chouhan, Sr.A.RFor Respondent: Shri C. Naresh, D.R
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 91

…or an expenditure which is contractual in nature is foisted on appellant the same is allowable as deduction though the same could be quantified based on reasonable estimate only. Reliance is placed on the decision of ITAT in Neyveli Lignite Corporation v ACIT 93 TTJ 685 (Chen) 4.1 The Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 14A computed as per Rule 8D at Rs.65.37 crore on a tax free income of Rs. 60.81 crore over looking fact that the appellant had himself quantified the disallowance at Rs.6.05 crore being 0.5% of average investments earning tax free income. The CIT (A) having agreed with the claim of…