Nirma Industries Ltd. v. DCIT

283 ITR 402High Court2006#752 most cited

What is Nirma Industries Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Interest received on delayed payments for sales is considered part of the sale proceeds and is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA as business income.

136

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,854 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Nirma Industries Ltd · DCIT · 283 ITR 402 · interest on delayed payment · sale proceeds · business income · Section 80-IA deduction

Also reported as

94 ITD 187

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43CASection 50CSection 48Section 80-I

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 120(4)(b)section 120(1)section 40(1)section 80iabsection 3asection 2(7a)section 262section 163section 160section 153(3)section 115ja

Judgments citing Nirma Industries Ltd. v. DCIT

SHI vs. Hahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 8251/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2007-08
For Respondent: Shri P. R. Ghosh

…siness by the assessee. Even the interest on the delayed payment of rent - itself a business receipt, would therefore be liable to be assessed as business income, and toward which we rely on the decision in the case of Nirma Industries Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2006] 283 ITR 402 (Guj). We decide accordingly, and the assessee succeeds on this Ground. Revenue’s Appeal - ITA No.7684/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2008-09) 7. Gd. 2 reads as under: ‘On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the amount had already been offered by the assessee in A.Y. 2007-08.’ As apparent, the said ground is…

D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S Teenlok Advisory Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1351/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…mbay High Court vide its order dated April 13, 2015 passed in ITA No. 1131 of 2013 by holding that there was no substantial question of law involved. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Nirma Industries Limited reported in 283 ITR 402, he contended that the order of the Tribunal in the case of India Advantage Securities Limited thus has merged with the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Third Member decision of the Tribunal in the case of DH Securities Pvt. Limited (supra) relied upon by the ld. D.R. stands impliedly overruled. He also relied on the latest decision…

Hiraco Jewellery (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 15, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7297/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)

…I.T.A. No.7297/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 1 of 19 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘K’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Pawan Singh JM] I.T.A. No.7297/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Hiraco Jewellery (India) Pvt. Ltd. .....……….………………….Appellant Unit No.501/502, Block-I, Seep++, SEZ, Andheri (E), Mumbai. [PAN: AABCH 5810 P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8(2), Mumbai ….......…..…………….…Respondent Appearances by: Bharath Janarthanan, for the appellant Mallikarjun Utture, for respondent Date of concluding the hearing : January 12th, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order :…

Rusabh Diamonds, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2840/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)

…f operating profit but that does not make any material difference because the interest levy for late realization of debtors, being inextricably connected with the sales, is also part of operating income. In the case of Nirma Industries Limited Vs DCIT [(2006) 283 ITR 402 (Guj)], Hon'ble High Court has dealing with the nature of interest on debtors, held it to be integral to business income. The same is the principle for the transfer pricing cases to that extent interest is to be taken as integral to I.T.A. Nos.2840 & 2497/Mum/2014 C.O. No.110/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 13 of 30 sale proceeds, and, as…

Gitanjali Exports Corpon. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, while appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 2Section 27Section 36(1)(iii)Section 51

…I.T.A. Nos.7662/Mum/2013 & 142/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2008-09 Page 1 of 21 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘K’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Pawan Singh JM] I.T.A. No.7662/Mum/2013 Assessment year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax .....……….………………….Appellant Central Circle-2, Mumbai. Vs. Gitanjali Exports Corporation Limited ….......…..…………….…Respondent 801-802, Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai. [PAN: AABCG 2804 N] I.T.A. No.142/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2008-09 Gitanjali Exports Corporation Limited .....……….………………….Appellant 801-802, Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai.…

Firestone Diamond P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 139/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…I.T.A. No.139/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2008-09 Page 1 of 18 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘K’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Pawan Singh JM] I.T.A. No.139/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2008-09 Firestone Diamond Pvt. Ltd. .....……….………………….Appellant (Now known as Firestar Diamond International Pvt. Ltd.), C/o. Karnavat & Co., 2A Kitab Mahal, 1st Floor, 192, Dr. D.N. Road Mumbai. [PAN: AABCJ 7268 H] Vs. Income Tax Officer, ….......…..…………….…Respondent Ward – 8(1)(4), Mumbai. Appearances by: Sunil K. Hirawat, for the appellant N.K. Chant, for respondent Date of concluding the hearing : January 1…

ACIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Gitanjali Exports Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, while appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7662/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 2Section 27Section 36(1)(iii)Section 51

…I.T.A. Nos.7662/Mum/2013 & 142/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2008-09 Page 1 of 21 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘K’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Pawan Singh JM] I.T.A. No.7662/Mum/2013 Assessment year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax .....……….………………….Appellant Central Circle-2, Mumbai. Vs. Gitanjali Exports Corporation Limited ….......…..…………….…Respondent 801-802, Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai. [PAN: AABCG 2804 N] I.T.A. No.142/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2008-09 Gitanjali Exports Corporation Limited .....……….………………….Appellant 801-802, Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai.…

M/S. Lairy Distributors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees stand allowed on legal grounds Nos

ITA 6947/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ed by the High Court by a process of dismissal of the appeal simpliciter and in order to ?upport the said proposition the assessee - appellant would seek to place its reliance on following judgments: (a) Nirma Industries Ltd. vs DCIT (Gujarat HC) reported in 283 ITR 402. That the learned CIT DR also argued that assessee - appellant has suppressed the provisions of section 153C(2)(a) and in the judgments relied on by assessee - uppellant, the counsel for the assessee’s have also suppressed the provisions of section 153C(2)(a) and also section 124 before various benches of Hon’ble Tribunal. In stating so, learned…

M/S. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 474/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…efore should be treated as a business receipt. In support of this proposition, he relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts: i. CIT Vs. Govind Choudhary & Sons, 203 ITR 881 (SC) ii. Nirman Industries Ltc. Vs. DCIT, 283 ITR 402(Guj.) iii. Konkan Barge Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO and Anr, 297 ITR 39(Bom.) iv. CIT Vs. Bhansali Engg. Polymars Ltd., 306 ITR 194(Bom.) v. Phatela Cotgin Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 303 ITR 411 (P&H) 5. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 4366/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…efore should be treated as a business receipt. In support of this proposition, he relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts: i. CIT Vs. Govind Choudhary & Sons, 203 ITR 881 (SC) ii. Nirman Industries Ltc. Vs. DCIT, 283 ITR 402(Guj.) iii. Konkan Barge Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO and Anr, 297 ITR 39(Bom.) iv. CIT Vs. Bhansali Engg. Polymars Ltd., 306 ITR 194(Bom.) v. Phatela Cotgin Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 303 ITR 411 (P&H) 5. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 2561/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…efore should be treated as a business receipt. In support of this proposition, he relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts: i. CIT Vs. Govind Choudhary & Sons, 203 ITR 881 (SC) ii. Nirman Industries Ltc. Vs. DCIT, 283 ITR 402(Guj.) iii. Konkan Barge Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO and Anr, 297 ITR 39(Bom.) iv. CIT Vs. Bhansali Engg. Polymars Ltd., 306 ITR 194(Bom.) v. Phatela Cotgin Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 303 ITR 411 (P&H) 5. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In…

M/S. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 3967/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…efore should be treated as a business receipt. In support of this proposition, he relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts: i. CIT Vs. Govind Choudhary & Sons, 203 ITR 881 (SC) ii. Nirman Industries Ltc. Vs. DCIT, 283 ITR 402(Guj.) iii. Konkan Barge Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO and Anr, 297 ITR 39(Bom.) iv. CIT Vs. Bhansali Engg. Polymars Ltd., 306 ITR 194(Bom.) v. Phatela Cotgin Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 303 ITR 411 (P&H) 5. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S K.Venkateswara Rao

ITTA/188/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Poddar Pigments Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/347/2010HC Delhi07 Apr 2010

Bench: The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Which, By The Impugned Order, Has Dismissed The Said Appeal. The Tribunal Came To The Conclusion That The Bad Debts Issue Had Already Been Considered In The Original Proceedings Under Section 143(3) And, Therefore, The Same Could Not Be Reopened In Reassessment Proceedings. We Find No Infirmity In The View Taken By The Tribunal On This Aspect Of The Matter.

For Appellant: Ms Sonia Mathur with Mr Sumit Kumar SinghFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 80

…he case of CIT v. Advance Detergents Ltd [ITA No.248/2009, decided on 30.11.2009]. This court, in Advance Detergents (supra), placed reliance on a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Nirma Industries Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax: 283 ITR 402 (Guj). This court also considered several other decisions of the other High Courts. They are:- ITA No.347/10 Page No.3 of 4 (i) Phatela Cotgin Industries (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax: 303 ITR 411 (P&H); (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Flender Macneill Gears Ltd: 150 ITR 83 (Cal); (iii) Tata Sponge Iron Ltd v. C…

C.I.T vs. Jackson Engineers Ltd

Appeal stands disposed of in the

ITA/251/2008HC Delhi23 Dec 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

Section 80I

…Page 11 of 18 10. Insofar as, interest on late payment made by the customers is concerned, it has the same character as “sales” as held by Gujarat High Court in the case of Nirma Industries Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [(2006) 283 ITR 402 (Guj). 11. No doubt in the present case, it is stated that interest from customers was charged; however, it is not clear as to whether it was on account of delayed payment. If that is the case, then the view of the Tribunal is correct in law. This aspect came up for consideration before this Court in ITA No. 248 of 2009 and other conn…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jackson Engineers Ltd

Appeal stands disposed of in the

ITA-251/2008HC Delhi23 Dec 2009
Section 80I

…dertaking 2009:DHC:5672-DB 10. Insofar as, interest on late payment made by the customers is concerned, it has the same character as “sales” as held by Gujarat High Court in the case of Nirma Industries Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [(2006) 283 ITR 402 (Guj). 11. No doubt in the present case, it is stated that interest from customers was charged; however, it is not clear as to whether it was on account of delayed payment. If that is the case, then the view of the Tribunal is correct in law. This aspect came up for consideration before this Court in ITA No. 248 of 2009 and other conn…