Prism Cement Ltd. v. JCIT

ITO-1(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. VISHWAS RAYONS PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kantito- 1(3)(4) Vs. Vishwas Rayons Private Room No. 528, 5Th Floor, Limited Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Room No. 19, 3Rd Floor Mumbai- 400020 6 M.K. Amin Marg, Bora Bazar Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001 Pan/Gir No. Aadcv1302N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assesseeby Shri. Rasesh Shah Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Impugned Order 23.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee & Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,62,27,500/- Made By The Ao Under I The Provisions Of Section 68 Of The 2 Vishwas Rayons Private Limited

…UM/2022.It was further held by the coordinate benches of ITAT in the following cases that the transaction of forfeiture of share applications is not a revenue receipt and thus not even chargeable to tax u/s. 41 of the Act: Prism Cement Ltd. vs. JCIT [2006] - 101 ITD 103 (Mum. Trib.), has held as under: „15. Thus, the earnest money or an advance amount received on account issuance of NCDs, if forfeited on account of non- payment of call money, the loan liability would only convert into a capital receipt. It would not assume a character of revenue receipt or business receipt because NCDs were not issued in the co…

DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. FUTURE RETAIL LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5959/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5959/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ACIT Range – 10(3)(2), M/s Future Retail Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Ground Floor, Knowledge बिधम/ Road, Mumbai 400 020 House, Off-Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Road, Shyam Vs. Nagar, Jogeshwari(E) Mumbai-400 060 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAACP6317L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 867/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s Future Retail Ltd. ACIT Range – 10(3)(2), Grou…

BALASORE ALLOYS LTD,ORRISSA vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Pawan Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 1170/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

…f which is available at page No. 90 to 99 of PB. In support of submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Coordinate Benches of Tribunal viz; Jaikishan Dadlani Versus ITO [2005] 4 SOT 138(Mumbai), Prism Cement Ltd Versus ACIT [2006] 101 ITD 103(Mumbai), DCIT Versus Brijlaxmi Leasing and Finance Ltd [2009] 118 ITD (AHD), Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd Versus DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 372 (Mumbai) and Asiatic Oxygen Ltd Versus DCIT [1994] 49 ITD 355 (Mumbai). It was argued that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT TV Sundaram Ayenger & Sons 222 ITR 344 (SC) relied…

DCIT CEN CIR 8(3), MUMBAI vs. TRANQUIL HOMES & HOLDING P.LTD, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

…2003] 87 ITD 618 (Hyd) Dy.CIT vs Tosha International Ltd [2008] 116 TTJ (Delhi) 941 Impast (P) Ltd vs Income Tax Officer [2004] 91 ITD 354 (Del) Helios Food Improvers (P) Ltd vs Dy.CIT [2007] 14 SOT 546 (Mum) Prism Cement Ltd vs Jt CIT [2006] 285 ITR(AT) 43 / 101 ITD 103(Mum) ITO vs Ahuja Graphic Machinery (P) Ltd [2007] 109 ITD 71 (Mum)(TM) Accelerated Freeze and Drying Co. Ltd. vs Dy.CIT (IT Appeal No.971 (Coch) of 2008. The assessee also distinguished the judgements relied upon by the AO on the ground that in those judgements, the amounts were received in course of trading transactions whereas in the case of t…

DCIT CEN CIR 8(3), MUMBAI vs. NALWA CHROME P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

…2003] 87 ITD 618 (Hyd) Dy.CIT vs Tosha International Ltd [2008] 116 TTJ (Delhi) 941 Impast (P) Ltd vs Income Tax Officer [2004] 91 ITD 354 (Del) Helios Food Improvers (P) Ltd vs Dy.CIT [2007] 14 SOT 546 (Mum) Prism Cement Ltd vs Jt CIT [2006] 285 ITR(AT) 43 / 101 ITD 103(Mum) ITO vs Ahuja Graphic Machinery (P) Ltd [2007] 109 ITD 71 (Mum)(TM) Accelerated Freeze and Drying Co. Ltd. vs Dy.CIT (IT Appeal No.971 (Coch) of 2008. The assessee also distinguished the judgements relied upon by the AO on the ground that in those judgements, the amounts were received in course of trading transactions whereas in the case of t…

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SICOM LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM M/s. SICOM Ltd., Vs. DCIT – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1st Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACS5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & DCIT – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/s. SICOM Ltd., Nirmal, 1st Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACS5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajan Vora with Shri Nikil Tiwari Revenue by Shri B. Pruseth Date of Hearing 20/09/2016 Date of Pronouncement 06/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the cross appeals filed by t…

SICOM LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM M/s. SICOM Ltd., Vs. DCIT – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1st Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACS5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & DCIT – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/s. SICOM Ltd., Nirmal, 1st Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACS5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajan Vora with Shri Nikil Tiwari Revenue by Shri B. Pruseth Date of Hearing 20/09/2016 Date of Pronouncement 06/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the cross appeals filed by t…

ASST CIT (OSD 8(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2011-12 Acit-8(2)(Osd), M/S Jayant Agro Organics R. No.218, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Akhandanand, 38, Marok Vs. M.K. Road, Co-Op. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020 Off. M.V. Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 Pan No.Aaacj7581Q (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

…firmed and the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 5. The Ld. A.R. has further relied upon the decision of the co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of “Prism Lt. vs. JCIT” (2006) 101 ITD 103 (Mum.) wherein the Tribunal has held that the amount received on account of forfeiture of NCDs for non payment of call money was to be treated as capital in nature as the issuance of NCDs (non convertible debentures) was not a business of the assessee and hence such amount cannot be charged to tax even under section 41(1) of the Act. 7 M/s Jayant…

ACIT (OSD) 8(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit (Osd)-8(2), M/S. Jayant Agro Organics Room No.218, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 38, Marol Co-Op Industrial M.K. Road, Vs. Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Off. M.V. Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 59 Pan: Aaacj 7581Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Mohandas, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2016

…nfirmed and the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 5. The Ld. A.R. has further relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of “Prism Lt. vs. JCIT” (2006) 101 ITD 103 (Mum.) wherein the Tribunal has held that the amount received on account of forfeiture of NCDs for non payment of call money was to be treated as capital in nature as the issuance of NCDs (non convertible debentures) was not a business of the assessee and hence such amount cannot be charged to tax even under section 41(1) of the Act. 6. We find…