Snam Progetti S.P.A v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

Q: How many judgments cite Snam Progetti S.P.A v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi?

24 judgments on BharatTax cite Snam Progetti S.P.A v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi (132 ITR 70), spanning 2007 to 2026.

132 ITR 70High Court1981#4861 most cited

What is Snam Progetti S.P.A v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi authority for?

Brought forward business loss can be set off against interest earned from bank deposits in a subsequent year if the interest can be attributed to a business activity, even if assessed under 'income from other sources'. However, interest on parked surplus funds generally qualifies as income from other sources and not business income, particularly in the context of Section 80HHC.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Snam Progetti S.P.A. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax · business loss set off · interest income · bank deposit interest · income from other sources · business activity · Section 80HHC · parked surplus funds

Issues it is cited on

business interest

Judgments citing Snam Progetti S.P.A v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5465/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

…Del/2011 HCL Technologies Ltd. envisaged under sec"on 10-A or sec"on 10-B of the Act and cannot be taxed separately under sec"on 56 of the Act.” (emphasis supplied) In one of the first judgments, the Delhi High Court in the case of Snam Proge" S.P.A. vs ACIT: 132 ITR 70 (Del) observed that: “The main ques"on for decision is whether the "interest income" could be treated as "business income". The answer to this ques"on has to depend on how we are to consider the interest income derived by the pe""oner. No doubt, normally, on the placing of funds in banks on short-term or long-term deposits the interest income deri…

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5624/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTORS (P) LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 40A(2)

…egy, Just-in-time approach and prudent business nature (Pg 30 of Appeal Papers) practice. (Pg 1039 and 1040 of PB-III) In support of above, the Appellant relies on the decision IT(TP)A No.150/B/2017 & 320/B/2019 Page 22 of 110 of Snam Progetti S.P.A. v ACIT 132 ITR 70 [para 13 and 14 at Pg 1782 and 1783 of Case Law Compilation]. 2. Liabilities/Provisions written back of Liabilities/Provisions written back should be Rs.27,71,30,000/- should be considered as considered as operating income. The Appellant submits operating income. The learned DRP rejected that since in the year of creation, provision was treated th…

MELLONA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1408/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mellona Developers Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(2)(2) Room No. 673A, Aayakar Bhavan 514, Dalamal Towers, 211 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aafcm3780K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal Department By : Shri Mahita Nair

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)

…Electrosmelt Limited 214 ITR 489 (Bombay High Court) (iii). Commissioner of Income Tax vs A.P. Forest Development Corporation 171 ITR 663 (Andhra Pradesh High Court) (iv). Snam Progetti S.P.A vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi -II, and others 132 ITR 70 (Delhi High Court) (v). Gamma Constructions Pvt Ltd vs ITO 3(3)(4), Mumbai ITA No. 530/Mum/2012, Mumbai Tribunal (vi). Gamma Constructions Pvt Ltd vs ITO 3(3)(4), Mumbai ITA No. 530/Mum/2012, Mumbai Tribunal (vii). Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd Vs ITO [181 Taxman 249] (viii). CIT v. VGR Foundation (298 ITR 132). (ix). Sears Constructions…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(2), HYDERABAD vs. ELGEN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 244/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Elgen (India) Pvt Ltd., Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 8520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri M. Poorna Chander Rao Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri M. Poorna Chander RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar

Section 143(3)

…ly thereafter. He went on to say that the head of income is to be determined only after the nature of activity producing interest is analysed. In support of his argument he cited the decision of the Delhi High Court in Snam Progetti S.P.A. v. Addl. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 70. He referred to the observations of the Delhi High Court in the head-note to the effect that the assessee had not come from Italy (assessee being an Italian company carrying on business as Engineers and Contractors in the field of Petroleum and Petro-Chemical Plants) to make deposits in India but had come to carry. on business and that the income…

V. K. INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 30(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6929/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 6929/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Nitin FuriaFor Respondent: Shri Vijayn Kumar G Subramaniyan

Section 28Section 80Section 80I

…s, the ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: 4 आअसं. 6929/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2012-13) ITA NO.6929/MUM/2017A.Y.2012-13) (i) CIT vs. Sportking India Ltd., 324 ITR 283(Del) (ii) Snam Progetti SPA vs. Addl.CIT, 132 ITR 70(Del) (iii) ITO vs. Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd. 13 ITR (Trib) 594(Ahd) 3. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that in ground No.2 of appeal, the assessee has raised an alternate contention without prejudice to the first contention that if, the redemption amount is not held to be eligible for deduction under section 80 IB of th…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. EVITA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7200/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

…es and, therefore, they were inextricably /inked with the assessee's activities and hence, assessable as income from business Interest earned on short term deposits made out of spare Snam Progetti SPA Vs. funds is assessable as business income. Add.CIT (2010) 132 ITR 70 (Del) Unutilized funds were invested in interest bearing short- Eveready Industries India term deposits. The assessee earned interest on such Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR short-term fixed deposits made out of the business 312 (Cal) funds available with the assessee before they were utilized for actual business and, therefore, the same was incidenta…

J.K.V.B. PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2349/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit

For Appellant: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned lower

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ome from business. 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) erred in not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Snam Progetti S.P.A. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi 132 ITR 70 (Del) where in it was held that interest earned from bank deposit was business income and further it was categorically held the interest from bank deposit was also a business income for the purpose of set off and could not be refused even if interest income is taxed under a separate head. 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the ca…

KELLOGG INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2866/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

…income is in the nature of business income, hence, the brought forward business loss has to be set–off against such income. In support of such contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Sham Progretti S.P.A. v/s ACIT, 132 ITR 70 (Del.). In our view, in course of proceedings before the Assessing Officer the assessee can raise such contention and if such contention is raised by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has to consider the same on merit. With the aforesaid direction, this ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 53. In ground no.15, the assessee has raised the…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IO CREATIONS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department stands

ITA 2762/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer, M/S I.O. Creations, Ward 54(2), 198, Jeevan Nagar Ashram, Room No. 1601, 16Th Floor, Vs New Delhi-110014 Civic Centre, E-2 Block, New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Department By: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2018

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 194ASection 250

…llowable expenses against such income. However, while allowing the assessee’s appeal, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Snam Progetti S.P.A. vs Addl.CIT reported in (1981) 132 ITR 70 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has taken a broader view and has considered interest income as incidental to business income in case where the company was established for carrying on business. It is undisputed that the nature of assessee’s business is sale and purchase of properties and, thus, the assessee’s main source of income is…

AMBUJA CEMENT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

…he nature of business 35] income, then even if these income are liable to be taxed under a head other than income from business and profession, the loss carried forward can be set off against such income of the assessee Snam Proeetti S.P.A. - vs.- ACIT (1981) 132 ITR 70(Del) Interest earned from depositing of spare funds in bank is in the nature of business income though taxed under a separate head and the same is eligible for set off against brought forward business loss Similar view has been held in:- Western States Trading Co Pvt Ltd -vs.- CIT (1971) 80 ITR 21(SC) DCIT -vs.- Canara Bank (2007) 11 SOT 763 (Bang…

DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI vs. SEARS CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6975/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, M/S. Sears Construction Central Circle-1(2), बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Room No.906, Pratishtha 514, Dalamal Towers, Vs. Bhavan, 10Th Floor, Old 211, Nariman Point, Cgo Building Annexe, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs5289E

…ax (Appeal) considering the decision in the case of CIT vs Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315(Supreme Court), CIT vs Maharashtra Electrosmelt Limited 214 ITR 489(Bom.), CIT vs A.P. Forest Development Corpo. 171 ITR 663(A.P.), Sanam Progetti S.P.A. vs Addl. CIT 132 ITR 70 (Del.), Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. vs Income 7 M/s Sears Construction Pvt. Ltd. Tax Officer 181 taxman 249 (Del.) and another decision from Hon'ble Chennai High Court in CIT vs VGR Foundation 298 ITR 132 (Chennai) and also the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemical and Fertilizers Ltd. 227 ITR 172 (Supreme…

M/S. ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 378/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S Orissa State Cooperative Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar At-D-2/3, Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaaao 0096 K (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2018 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/05/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.06.2017, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0039/2016-17, U/S.143(3)/250 Of The I.T.Act For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Not Pressed The Grounds No.2 & 3 Of The Grounds Of Appeal. Accordingly, We Dismiss The Ground Nos.2&3 As Not Pressed. 3. The Effective Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under :- 1. Ld Cit (Appeals) Is Wrong & Unlawful In Upholding The Decision Of Assessing Officer With Respect To Disallowance Of Interest Claimed By The Assessee U/S 80P(2) (D). Interest Income From Orissa State Co Operative Bank Ltd Being Another Co Operative Society To The Tune Of Rs. 30,37,898/-. 4. Thus Ld Cit (Appeals) Is Wrong In Holding That, The Whole Of Rs. 44,02,128/- Interest Income Is Income From Fixed Deposits & Is Neither Deductible U/S 80P(2)(D) Nor Eligible For Set Off Against Carried Forward Loss For Being Income From Other Sources.

For Appellant: Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 72(1)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

…mits that the decision of above Hon‟ble High Courts are against the assessee and there is no decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court reversing the same. 6.1 He also relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of SnamProgetti S.P.A. vs ACIT (1981) 132 ITR 70 (DEL)), wherein, it was held that if the interest income was derived from 6 „business activity‟ then the mere fact that it is taxed under a different section will make no difference. The approach to the problem has, therefore, to be disassociated from the section under which the tax is imposed on the form of income. 6.2 In the case of the assessee…

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 66/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Biswa Ranjan Patnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(e)

…that the decision of above Hon’ble High Courts are against the assessee and there is no decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reversing the same. 6.1 He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Snam Progetti S.P.A. vs ACIT (1981) 132 ITR 70 (DEL)), wherein, it was held that if the interest income was derived from ‘business activity’ then the mere fact that it is taxed under a different section will make no difference. The approach to the problem has, therefore, to be disassociated from the section under which the tax is imposed on the form of income. 6.2 In the case of the assesse…

ACIT, CIR-31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL HOUSING BOARD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 284/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80I

…f the other regular sources of income that the need arises for invoking section 56 of the Act. Where a person has only one source of income, which is business, there could hardly be any other inference. In the case of Snam Progetti S.P.A. vs. Add!. CIT [1981J 132 ITR 70 the Delhi High Court took a broad view and considered interest as incidental to business income, because it cannot be presumed that the assessee has come all the way from Italy to make bank deposits on India, when it was clear that the company was established for carrying on business. 9.4 In the case of CIT vs. Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corpora…

M/S. MATRIX INFRASTRUCTURE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5428/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm & Sh. O.P.Kant, Am

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40

…of business and the interest income being part of business income, should not be assessed separately as income from other sources. In support thereof, he relied on the judicial pronouncements reported in 9 ITS 263 (mum), 345 ITR 283 (All), 297 ITR 70 (Kar) , 132 ITR 70 (Del). Further, the Ld AR submitted that without prejudice to the above, if interest income might be treated towards the project and then same may be adjusted to reduce cost of project in terms of decision reported in 236 ITR 315 (SC). Further, the ld AR also contended that without prejudice to the above the interest paid to AWHO for advance, out…

M/s Lavish Apartment (P.) Ltd

ITA/254/2006HC Delhi23 Jul 2012

Section 72(1)

…it cannot possibly adopt different or inconsistent legal positions before the Courts or the Tribunals. 2012:DHC:4478-DB ITA No.254/2006 Page 14 of 14 25. The other decision of this Court is in Snam Progetti S.P.A. v. Addl. CIT, (1981) 132 ITR 70. In this case following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Cocanada (supra) and Chugan Das & Co. (supra) it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that the brought forward business loss can be set off against the interest earned by the assessee from bank deposit in the subsequent year, if such interest can be attributed to a business…

CIT vs. JV ELECTRONICS PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of

ITA - 300 / 2002HC Delhi18 Nov 2011

Section 80Section 80H

…ber of the decisions of the hon‟ble Supreme Court in the context of section 56 and section 57 and those of the Kerala High Court in the context of section 80HHC itself, we are unable to accept the contention of the assessees based on Snam Proghetti [1981] 132 ITR 70 (Delhi) that interest earned on parked surplus funds should qualify as business income. Clearly, Snam Proghetti [1981] 132 ITR 70 (Delhi) was not rendered in the context of section 80HHC and cannot but be confined to the facts of that case. Circular No. 564, dated July 5, 1990 (see [1990] 184 ITR (St.) 137), can also not help in interpreting…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-V vs. NECTAR LIFE SCIENCE LTD.

ITA/125/2009HC Delhi20 Oct 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 80H

…ontext of section 80HHC itself, we are unable to accept the contention of the assessees based on Snam Proghetti [1981] 132 ITR 70 (Delhi) that interest earned on parked surplus funds should qualify as business income. Clearly, Snam Proghetti [1981] 132 ITR 70 (Delhi) was not rendered in the context of section 80HHC and cannot but be confined to the facts of that case. Circular No. 564, dated July 5, 1990 (see [1990] 184 ITR (St.) 137), can also not help in interpreting section 80HHC which is a “stand alone” provision. We are, therefore, of the view that where surplus funds are parked with t…

CIT vs. NECTAR LIFESCIENCES LTD

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/1543/2010HC Delhi20 Oct 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 80Section 80H

…context of section 80HHC itself, we are unable to accept the contention of the assessees based on Snam Proghetti [1981] 132 ITR 70 (Delhi) that interest earned on parked surplus funds should qualify as business income. Clearly, Snam Proghetti [1981] 132 ITR 70 (Delhi) was not rendered in the context of section 80HHC and cannot but be confined to the facts of that case. Circular No. 564, dated July 5, 1990 (see [1990] 184 ITR (St.) 137), can also not help in interpreting section 80HHC which is a “stand alone” provision. We are, therefore, of the view that where surplus funds are parked with…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2